Supreme Court of California Reverses Murder Conviction, Finding Trial Judge Improperly Dismissed Holdout Juror Based on “Unwillingness to Deliberate”

When may a juror be removed from a jury based on unwillingness to deliberate? That was the question addressed by the Supreme Court of California in its recent opinion in People v. McGhee, 2025 WL 1000847 (Cal. 2025).

In McGhee, the defendant was charged with three counts of first degree murder and four counts of attempted murder. At the close of the case,

At the end of that third day, after the jury had been deliberating for almost 10 hours, the court received the following note from two jurors: “We, Jurors Number Nine and 11, feel that the majority of the jury feels as though one juror, Number Five, has been swayed and is not capable of making a fair decision in any of the counts against McGhee. Juror Number Five is using speculation as facts and has no rational explanation as to why he feels the way he does other than saying every prosecution witness was coached and lying. Yet the defense witnesses are all telling the truth and believable.”

The jury continued its deliberations the following morning. Meanwhile, the court read the note to counsel for both sides and, over defense objection, decided that it would make an inquiry into the accusations against Juror No. 5. At that point, the court directed the jury to stop deliberating.

After questioning the jurors, the judge dismissed Juror #5 concluding, inter alia, that he demonstrated an unwillingness to deliberate. 

The defendant was ultimately convicted and appealed, with the Supreme Court of California reversing his convictions, ruling as follows:

To the extent the court’s discharge of Juror No. 5 for failure to deliberate meant that Juror No. 5 was refusing to deliberate, that conclusion is not manifestly supported by the record.

“A refusal to deliberate consists of a juror’s unwillingness to engage in the deliberative process….Examples of refusal to deliberate include, but are not limited to, expressing a fixed conclusion at the beginning of deliberations and refusing to consider other points of view, refusing to speak to other jurors, and attempting to separate oneself physically from the remainder of the jury.” In People v. Lomax…, we upheld the discharge of a seated juror in the penalty phase of a capital case where the record showed the juror would not communicate with the other jurors or explain his views and the juror himself agreed that his conscience rendered him unable to take part in deliberations….In People v. Diaz…, the court found no abuse of discretion in the discharge of a juror for refusing to deliberate where the record showed that she had stopped deliberating on the first day because she felt intimidated by other jurors and emotionally upset by an illness in her family….

Examples of a juror’s unwillingness to deliberate include refusing to engage in dialogue at all, rejecting arguments out of hand, and physically distancing himself or herself from the group….But “[i]t is not uncommon, or grounds for discharge, ‘for a juror (or jurors) in a trial to come to a conclusion about the strength of a prosecution’s case early in the deliberative process and then refuse to change his or her mind despite the persuasive powers of the remaining jurors.’”…

Nearly all the jurors said Juror No. 5 had been deliberating for the better part of three court days — almost 10 hours of deliberations — before the court received the note from Jurors No. 9 and No. 11 complaining about Juror No. 5. Juror No. 11 testified further that at some unspecified point during their deliberations, Juror No. 5 told his fellow jurors that he was not going to change his mind but that he would try to convince others to change theirs. “A juror who has participated in deliberations for a reasonable period of time may not be discharged for refusing to deliberate, simply because the juror expresses the belief that further discussion will not alter his or her views.”

-CM