The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing because the record regarding juror misconduct was not sufficiently developed. The defendant moved for a new trial after collecting three juror declarations, which indicated the jury discussed the defendant’s failure to testify during deliberations. While the parties agreed that the jury’s discussions constituted misconduct, the record is not clear as to the scope of the misconduct and whether their discussion indicated that the jurors drew adverse inferences therefrom. Further, the record is silent as to whether the jurors were reminded that they should not consider the defendant’s decision not to testify.
^