Can a jury in a civil case reenact an in-court demonstration of an incident where a plaintiff alleges police officers falsely arrested him?

Bryan relies on Bell v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 919. There, the plaintiff claimed police officers falsely arrested him, and testified how officers grabbed his arms, held his wrists behind his back up to his neck, forced him to bend over and stand on his toes, and walk down a flight of stairs and out of the building in this position. (Id. at p. 925.) The trial court disallowed an in-court demonstration fearing someone would be injured. (Id. at p. 932.) During deliberations one of the jurors informed the other jurors she and a third party attempted to reenact the plaintiff's version out of court, but she fell over and therefore disbelieved the plaintiff's testimony. (Id. at p. 930.) The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order for a new trial, and quoted with approval the trial court's explanation: "'The incident the juror was attempting to replicate is not subject to experimentation because of the inability to accurately duplicate critical factors such as the size, strength and height of the individuals, the amount of force involved, and the specific or unusual physical characteristics of each individual involved." . . . [] . . . [] . . . [T]his particular experiment would not have been within the lines of offered evidence even had it been conducted in the jury room with all twelve jurors present. The fact that the experiment was performed by one juror, aided by unknown third parties, outside of the court room and the deliberations, is more egregious and resulted in outside influences or extrinsic evidence permeating the jury's deliberation on perhaps the key factual determination in the case.'" (Id. at pp. 932-933, italics added.)