Does the trial court abuse its position in refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the defense allegations of jury misconduct or in failing to compel jurors to testify?

Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the defense allegations of jury misconduct or in failing to compel jurors to testify. While these procedural tools are available to trial courts, not every allegation of misconduct justifies their use. We have emphasized that evidentiary hearings should not be used as fishing expeditions to search for possible misconduct. Instead, such hearings should be conducted only when the defense has come forward with evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that prejudicial misconduct has occurred. Moreover, even when the defense has made such a showing, an evidentiary hearing will generally be unnecessary unless the evidence presents a material conflict that can be resolved only at such a hearing. (People v. Hedgecock (1990) 51 Cal.3d 395, 419, 272 Cal.Rptr. 803, 795 P.2d 1260.) In this case, the affidavits submitted by the defense did not demonstrate a strong possibility that prejudicial misconduct had occurred.