Jurors Inability or Refusal to Deliberate

Replacing a Juror who exhibits an inability or refusal to deliberate People v. Thomas, supra, 26 Cal. App. 4th 1328, 1333 (juror "did not answer the questions posed to him by other jurors, did not sit at the table with the other jurors during deliberations, acted as if he had already made up his mind before hearing the whole case, and did not look at the two victims in the courtroom. . . . the refusal to deliberate amounted to a failure of the juror to perform his duty . . . and constituted good cause for removal from the jury"); People v. Feagin, supra, 34 Cal. App. 4th 1427, 1436-1437 ("A majority of the jurors confirmed that Juror Perdue was unwilling to participate in the jury discussions, refused to explain her thoughts and had brought up issues of police bias. . . ."); People v. Williams (1996) 46 Cal. App. 4th 1767, 1780-1781 ("several jurors testified that juror No. 373 was inattentive, constantly requested that the jurors take time to organize their notes, forgot previous votes or discussions, and even attempted to alter the jury instructions. . . . the court found that juror No. 373 was unable to comprehend simple concepts, was unable to remember events during deliberations such as recent discussions or votes, and was not following the law.").