CALCRIM No. 3551. Further Instruction About Deliberations
Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2020 edition)Download 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 you.
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 (4th ed. 2012) 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