Opinion ID: 2387024
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Asking the jury to conduct an experiment

Text: The prosecutor stated that [y]ou're going to be asked by both sides to look at the weapon. [¶] I invite you to look at the trigger pull. You can look at it on single action and double action. It is a significant pull to get the trigger to pull. I want you to put the safety on. You'll see when you put on that safety it's impossible to get that gun to fire. Not only did defendant fail to object to these comments, but he earlier agreed that the jurors should be permitted to inspect the weapon in order to allow them to appreciate its mechanical operation. [24] Therefore, he has forfeited any claim regarding these comments. (15) This claim also fails on the merits. `A jury's verdict in a criminal case must be based on the evidence presented at trial, not on extrinsic matters.' ... A juror commits misconduct if the juror ... engages in an experiment that produces new evidence [citation]. ( People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 829 [80 Cal.Rptr.3d 211, 187 P.3d 1041], citations omitted.) The prosecutor's invitation that the jurors examine the firearm was a request that they consider the evidence presented at trial, not that they produce new evidence through an experiment. Thus, there was no impropriety in his remarks.