California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Hendricks, 11 Cal.App.4th 126, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 719 (Cal. App. 1992):
"On the day set for sentencing, the parties reminded the court that a sanity hearing had not been conducted immediately after the guilt phase, as required by [ ] section 190.1, subdivision (c). Over defendant's objection that the same jury must determine all the issues in a capital trial, the court empaneled a new jury to decide the issue of sanity alone. After deliberations that spanned 11 days the jurors reported they were hopelessly deadlocked, and a mistrial was declared. Over defendant's further objection, the court then called back the original jurors--who had been discharged more than five months earlier--and reempaneled them without examining them itself or allowing voir dire by the parties. This jury returned a verdict that defendant was sane at the time of the crimes charged. Thereupon the court imposed the sentence of death." (People v. Hendricks (1987) 43 Cal.3d 584, 588-589, 238 Cal.Rptr. 66, 737 P.2d 1350.)
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.