California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2017)
3551. Further Instruction About DeliberationsDownload PDF
3551.Further Instruction About Deliberations
Sometimes juries that have had difficulty reaching a verdict are able to
resume deliberations and successfully reach a verdict [on one or more
counts]. Please consider the following suggestions.
Do not hesitate to reexamine your own views. Fair and effective jury
deliberations require a frank and forthright exchange of views.
Each of you must decide the case for yourself and form your individual
opinion after you have fully and completely considered all of the
evidence with your fellow jurors. It is your duty as jurors to deliberate
with the goal of reaching a verdict if you can do so without
surrendering your individual judgment. Do not change your position
just because it differs from that of other jurors or just because you or
others want to reach a verdict. Both the People and the Defendant are
entitled to the individual judgment of each juror.
It is up to you to decide how to conduct your deliberations. You may
want to consider new approaches in order to get a fresh perspective.
Let me know whether I can do anything to help you further, such as
give additional instructions or clarify instructions I have already given
Please continue your deliberations at this time. If you wish to
communicate with me further, please do so in writing [using the form
my bailiff has given you].
New February 2012
There is no sua sponte duty to instruct a deadlocked jury on continuing its
deliberations. Nevertheless, courts of review have approved instruction on the
topics covered in this instruction (See People v. Gainer (1977) 19 Cal.3d 835, 856
[139 Cal.Rptr. 861, 566 P.2d 997]; People v. Moore (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1105,
1118 [117 Cal.Rptr.2d 715].) The court may give this instruction if the jury
announces that it is unable to reach a verdict. In case of an impasse, Penal Code
Section 1140 vests the trial court with discretion to determine whether there is a
reasonable probability of agreement among jurors. California Rules of Court, Rule
2.1036 further explains the court’s role in such a case.
•Allen Charge Disapproved. People v. Gainer (1977) 19 Cal.3d 835, 842 [139
Cal.Rptr. 861, 566 P.2d 997].
• Duty to Deliberate. People v. Gainer (1977) 19 Cal.3d 835, 856 [139 Cal.Rptr.
861, 566 P.2d 997].
• Keep an Open Mind. People v. Selby (1926) 198 Cal. 426, 439 [245 P. 426].
• Alternate Methods of Deliberation. People v. Moore (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th
1105, 1118 [117 Cal.Rptr.2d 715].
6 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Judgment,
4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85,
Submission to Jury and Verdict. § 85.05 (Matthew Bender).
3552–3574. Reserved for Future Use
CALCRIM No. 3551 POST-TRIAL: CONCLUDING