is you go through a possible panel by questioning them, trying to find their impartiality, trying to find their neutrality on a case like this, and certain jurors are dismissed and you end up with 12. “And you have a right to present your case to those 12 people. And those 12 people have to unanimously decide that you’re guilty. If they don’t have unanimity, if it is not unanimous, then they don’t come back with a guilty verdict on you. That’s in particular what you’re giving up. Do you understand that, [sic] “THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. “THE COURT: And is it still your desire to waive that trial to a jury l waiver valid although the district court did not explain that a 12-person jury would need to unanimously agree on guilt); State v. Clemons, 273 Kan. 328, 340-41, 45 P.3d 384 (2002) (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Savage, No. 112,882, 2015
holding jury trial waiver valid although district court did not inform defendant of right to unanimous verdict holding that trial court did not err in declining to accept jurys first verdict when form stated that the jury found the defendant undecided and trial courts interpretation of the verdict form to mean that the jury was either not unanimous or had not decided yet whether defendant was guilty or not guilty was reasonable and thus trial court properly instructed jury to continue deliberating holding that where a jury returned with a unanimous finding of no proximate cause but could not reach a unanimous finding on the question of negligence the jury verdict was simple to harmonize and such a finding compelled a judgment for defendant internal quotation marks omitted holding jury trial waiver valid despite defendants argument that district court failed to clearly distinguish between jury trial bench trial and the use of stipulated facts holding that where a jury fails to return unanimous answers to some of the questions on a special verdict form the trial judge can enter judgment on the basis of the unanimous verdicts if they are dispositive of the case