at 164 (citing State v. Agtuca, 12 Wash.App. 402, 529 P.2d 1159 (1974)); accord 21A Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 1294 (1998). Appellate review of a trial court’s actions in polling a jury is a two-fold process, involving both a'question of fact and of law. First, we review as a factual question the trial court’s determination concerning unanimity on a clearly erroneous standard, granting some deference to the trial judge, because a “trial judge, in determining whether a juror has freely assented to the verdict, not only hears the juror’s response, but observes the juror’s demeanor and tone of voice during the course of the polling of the jury.” People v. Cabrera, 116 Ill.2d 474, 108 Ill.Dec. 397, 508 N.E.2d 708, 714 (1987); see also United States v. Luciano, 734 F.2d 68, 70 (1st Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Sincox v. United States, 571 F.2d 876, 879
holding that deference is due trial courts determination regarding jurors ultimate assent to the verdict because of trial judges nearness to the proceedings citing amos v united states 496 f2d 1269 1273 8th cir1974 holding that an appellate court must give deference to the trial judges determination of juror competency holding that where the trial courts determination that the defendant was mentally capable to proceed with trial was not supported by the evidence the verdict and judgment must be vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings against the defendant holding total deference is given to the trial courts determination of historical facts supported by the record especially when the trial courts findings turn on evaluating a witnesss credibility and demeanor holding that a trial courts statutory interpretation is given no deference on review