What is the test for coercion in a jury trial?

"'Although the court must take care to exercise its power without coercing the jury into abdicating its independent judgment in favor of considerations of compromise and expediency [citation], the court may direct further deliberations upon its reasonable conclusion that such direction would be perceived "'as a means of enabling the jurors to enhance their understanding of the case rather than as mere pressure to reach a verdict on the basis of matters already discussed and considered.'"'" (People v. Bell (2007) 40 Cal.4th 582, 616.) A defendant's right to due process is violated if a trial court coerces jurors into reaching a verdict. (Jiminez v. Myers (9th Cir. 1993) 40 F.3d 976, 978-980.)

Defendant appears to argue that simply because the jury stated that it was deadlocked, the trial court was obligated to cease deliberations. We disagree. "'[Section 1140] clearly commits to the trial judge, not to the jury, the determination of the question whether or not "there is no reasonable probability that the jury can agree."'" (People v. Finch (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 752, 763.) The trial court is required to determine in its "sound discretion" whether there is a reasonable probability of agreement by the jury. (People v. Miller (1990) 50 Cal.3d 954, 994.)

Defendant asserts that the trial court "subtly coerced the jury to reach a verdict." In analyzing a claim of coercion, the relevant inquiry is whether the trial court's comments imposed such pressure on jurors to reach a verdict that the accuracy and integrity of the jury's stated conclusion cannot be assured. (People v. Gainer (1977) 19 Cal.3d 835, 850 (Gainer), disapproved on another point in People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, 163.) "The question of coercion is necessarily dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. [Citation.]" (People v. Sandoval, supra, 4 Cal.4th 155, 196;

Page 19

People v. Pride, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 265; People v. Breaux, supra, 1 Cal.4th 281, 319.)