Does the trial court have the power to give supplemental jury instructions to a deadlocked jury?

Although defendant did not object at trial to the trial court's answers to jurors' questions, he argues on appeal that the court's remarks violated his federal and state constitutional rights to a fair trial by a unanimous jury, because they "were at best confusing and at worst served to coerce the three minority jurors into agreeing with the nine jurors who had voted for sanity." (E.g. People v. Gainer (1977) 19 Cal.3d 835, 842843, 850 (Gainer) [improper to pressure dissenting jurors to acquiesce in verdict, disapproving Allen v. United States (1896) 164 U.S. 492].)

The trial court is authorized to give supplemental jury instructions to a deadlocked jury if it determines in its sound discretion that there is a reasonable probability of agreement by the jury. (People v. Whaley (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 968, 979-980 (Whaley).) "However, [t]he court must exercise its power . . . without coercion of the jury, so as to avoid displacing the jury's independent judgment "in favor of considerations of compromise and expediency." [Citation.]' [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 980.) The trial court is prohibited from (1) encouraging jurors to consider the numerical division or preponderance of opinion of the jury in reexamining their views on the issues

Page 22