Whether a trial court's failure to instruct a reconstituted jury to deliberate anew after a juror substitution violates the Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury verdict

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Mark Gonzalez’s penalty-phase jury was charged with deciding two issues that together would dictate his sentence. The jury had reached a verdict on the first of the two issues and was arguing over the second when one juror became so distressed by the discord and hostility pervading the jury room that he suffered a debilitating anxiety attack. The trial court then replaced the impaired juror with an alternate but refused defense counsel’s request that the newly constituted jury be instructed to begin its penalty-phase deliberations anew. The following questions are presented: (1) Whether, after the substitution of a juror midway through deliberations, a trial court’s failure to instruct the reconstituted jury to deliberate anew violates the defendant’s Sixth Amendment jury-trial right to a unanimous verdict after collective deliberations; and (2) Whether such a profound Sixth Amendment violation constitutes structural error. i LIST OF