California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Vallejo, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 341, 214 Cal.App.4th 1033 (Cal. App. 2013):
Juror number 2's sworn declaration, however, was admissible to the extent it presented evidence of overt acts or statements that are objectively ascertainable by sight, hearing, or the other senses. [Citation.] ( People v. Cissna (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1116,106 Cal.Rptr.3d 54.) Thus, juror number 2's statements concerning her request for a rereading of testimony were admissible. But her reasons for requesting the readback of testimony were inadmissible.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.