Can a jury member be found guilty of misconduct for chastising a juror during jury deliberations?

The court applied Evidence Code section 1150, finding that "while the conduct of jurors disregarding an agreement on smoking or complaining about the pace of deliberations may be scrutinized, the effect of this conduct on subsequent votes may not be. When we exclude the latter, the former, standing alone, does not implicate juror misconduct . . . ." (Cox, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 695; see also People v. Aeschlimann (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 460, 471-472 & fn. 2 (Aeschlimann) [finding that the fact that some jurors wanted to finish deliberations on a Friday "falls far short of establishing as a matter of law that the verdicts were decided by some 'means other than a fair expression of opinion on the part of all the jurors' (Pen. Code, 1181, subd. 4)"].)

Similarly, in People v. Orchard (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 568, the defense sought a new trial because the foreman had chastised one of the jurors during deliberations, which " 'so embarrassed and humiliated [her] in front of the other members of the jury that she voted 'guilty' . . . ." (Id. at p. 572, fn. 1.) After striking the sections of the affidavit that related to the effect of the foreman's conduct, the court concluded that the remaining allegations "simply describe[d] an account of interchange between jurors . . . . To permit inquiry as to the validity of a verdict based upon the demeanor, eccentricities or personalities of individual jurors would deprive the jury room of its inherent quality of free expression." (Id. at p. 574.)