Is there any evidence that a reconstituted jury was coerced into reaching a verdict?

There is no merit to defendant's claim that the reconstituted jury was coerced into reaching a verdict or that it failed to deliberate anew. "We presume [it] followed the trial court's instructions to begin the deliberation anew [citation], and defendant's speculation to the contrary does not persuade us to conclude otherwise." (People v. Fuiva (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 716.) Here, that presumption is supported by the actual, deliberative conduct of the reconstituted jury. It requested a readback and asked the court for clarification of instructions. Defendant asserts the length of deliberations is evidence the jury did not follow the instruction to begin deliberations anew. "But the brevity of the deliberations proves nothing. [Citations.] The newly constituted jury was not required to deliberate for the same length of time as the original jury, nor was it required to review the same evidence. When, as here, there are no indications to the contrary, we assume that the jurors followed the trial court's instructions and started afresh.

Page 45