California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Wright, B230864 (Cal. App. 2012):
Respondent cites a more recent decision, People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, which we find instructive. In Hawthorne, a capital case, the trial judge was home on vacation during a portion of the jury's deliberations. Counsel had stipulated to a procedure for handling jury matters while the judge was out of the courthouse. (Id. at p. 61.) Twelve days into their deliberations, the jurors gave the bailiff a note asking, "'What do we do now? After much extra deliberation one member of the jury is not sure whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.'" (Ibid.) The bailiff called the judge at home and informed him of the jury's question. The judge instructed the bailiff to advise the jury to continue deliberating until an answer was returned and to have the clerk alert the attorneys of the jury's inquiry. Immediately after the first call, however, the judge received a second call from the bailiff informing him the jury wished to continue to deliberate without receiving an answer to their inquiry. The judge therefore instructed the bailiff to place the jury's question in the file and to have the jury continue to deliberate without informing counsel of the jury's query. (Id. at pp. 62-63, 64.) The jury later found the defendant guilty of capital murder. (Id. at p. 51.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.