Court Opinion

ID: 9746089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 13:57:24.406891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:08.684587
License: Public Domain

McADAMS, J., Concurring.
I agree with the disposition of this case, with much of the analysis and certainly with my colleagues’ cautionary comments regarding departure from existing predeliberation instructions.
I write separately to dispel any impression that such agreement means that I approve of or encourage the use of the entirety of the supplemental deadlocked jury instruction given in this case and found to be commendable in People v. Moore (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1122 [117 Cal.Rptr.2d 715]. In particular, I am troubled by the statement to the jurors that they should consider using “reverse role playing” as a method of deliberation, especially in a case such as this one where the trial court was aware at the time of the instruction that the numerical breakdown of the deadlocked jury was 11 to one. Furthermore, I have concerns about language found in the early and later portions of the instruction that creates the impression that the court has the expectation that the jurors should come to a verdict, the statement shortly thereafter that they have a “goal as jurors” to reach a verdict if they are able to do so “regardless of how long it takes,” and the concluding charge that the panel is “ordered to continue your deliberations.” These remarks are a far cry from the restrained, neutral tone of CALCRIM No. 3550. (Judicial Council of Cal. Crim. Jury Instns. (2006) CALCRIM No. 3550.)
I disagree with the view that such statements cannot be found to be unduly coercive because they are mere “suggestions” made by the court. These comments are more than friendly and helpful advice. The trial judge is seen by the jury as the central courtroom authority figure, the unbiased source of the law and the same person who previously instructed them in CALCRIM No. 200 that “[y]ou must follow the law as I explain it to you, even if you disagree with it.” Thus the need for utmost caution.
*986Nevertheless, I conclude that these concerns and criticisms do not rise to a level that compels reversal under the circumstances of this case.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied October 10, 2007, S154180.