Cited by

only where the record clearly shows that the defendant has waived [their] right to be present.”

should be conducted, if at all, only for valid reasons and only where the record clearly shows that the defendant has waived his right to be present.”

Circumstances that may add to a finding of coercion include a judge having ex parte communications with a deliberating juror, -74 (1996), a judge providing an impasse instruction prematurely, see Huerstel, 206 Ariz. at 101, ¶ 25, or a judge persuading a jury foreman to keep deliberating after the foreman expressed that further deliberations would be unproductive

Knowledge of Numerical Division ¶17 “Disclosing the numerical division will not always indicate a coerced verdict.”

-73 (1996); -10 (1994); State v. McCutcheon (McCutcheon II), State v. McCutcheon (McCutcheon I), Roberts, 131 Ariz. at 514-16

P.2d 1298 (1996), in 7 STATE v. TRACY Decision of the Court which our supreme court feared that the trial court had “inadvertently created an atmosphere of coercion when it repeatedly communicated the implicit messa

Although proceedings “held outside of the defendant’s presence are fraught with danger and should be conducted, if at all, only for valid reasons and only where the record clearly shows that the defendant has waived his right to be present,” defense counsel acknowledged at one point below that the conferences Hargrave did not attend addressed only juror questions to which counsel did not object.

See, (calling knowledge of the jury’s numerical division “an important factor when considering the totality of the circumstances”); (noting that “[w]hen the numerical division is known, particularly if the division is lo

If a defendant objects to a further jury instruction, we review the trial judge’s decision for an abuse of discretion, but reversible error occurs if a judge improperly coerces a verdict

¶94 Jury coercion exists when “the trial court’s actions or remarks, viewed in the totality of the circumstances, displaced the independent judgment of the jurors,” State v. McCrimmon, 187 Ariz. 169, 172, (-20, -69 (1986)), or when the trial judge encourages a deadlocked jury to reach a verdict, McCutcheon, 150 Ariz. at 320, 723 P.2d at 669.

State v. McCrimmon/Minnitt, P.2d 1298 (1996).

("Whenever possible, trial courts should avoid ex parte communications with jurors, even at a juror's request and even if counsel consent."); , (collecting cases).

2658, 2667 , 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987); Levato, 186 Ariz. at 443 , 924 P.2d at 447

The test for coercion is ‘“whether the trial court’s actions or remarks, viewed in the totality of circumstances, displaced the independent judgment of the jurors.’ ” , ( , ).