Jurors did not reach a verdict today in Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo’s misdemeanor peeking trial. The split was 11-1, and it was not indicated in which favor. Jurors will return Monday to continue deliberation.

The news comes at the end of an usual day in the courtroom. Members of the jury were contacted twice this week by a member of the press, judge Gary Medvigy said Friday. The jurors each said the contact did not impact their deliberations, and Medgivy allowed the trial to proceed after an hour of individual juror interviews. The highly unusual incident did, however, promot outrage from defense attorney Chris Andrian.

“I think it’s more than contempt of court, I think it may be a felony,” he told the judge. “It makes this whole thing sound like a circus more than a courtroom.”

Two jurors reported being approached by a man whom they later understood to be a reporter. One woman who said she was wearing her juror badge at the time, said she was asked her occupation and if she worked full time on the first day of trial by the man.

Another woman was asked on the jury’s lunch recess, “Is there a verdict in the Carrillo case?” She responded that she was not allowed to talk about the case. “Based solely on appearance, he was a member of the press,” she told the judge.

The jury reportedly had reached a verdict just before the noon recess, but Judge Medvigy elected to wait until court resumed at 1:30 to hear the verdict. One juror changed his or her mind just before court resumed, Medgivy said.

The jury is scheduled to resume deliberations at 10:45 Monday morning. Follow @NicolasGrizzle on Twitter for updates.

Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo took the stand in his peeking trial on Thursday afternoon saying he has a bigger problem with alcohol than he let on to officers. He said that he told officers he had “two beers and a couple of really strong mixed drinks,” but said he had actually had much more than that. He says he was trying to hide it and was in denial. “At the time, I was accustomed to downplaying and minimalizing the struggle.”

He told his defense attorney Chris Andrian there were two reasons why he went over to Jane Doe’s apartment at 3:30 that morning: “The fact that I was drinking” was one and “I was hoping to rekindle some kind of relationship” was the other. He later admitted, under cross-examination, that there really was no relationship to begin with, and he was basing his perception off of two brief interactions.

“My sense of ego,” “My sense of entitlement,” and “My sense of arrogance made me think it was a good idea to go over to Jane Doe’s house,” Carrillo told the defense. “It was selfish,” he said. “It had nothing to do with Jane Doe, only with me.”

He added, “There is no excuse.”

Carrillo admitted during his testimony that he had damaged Jane Doe’s bedroom screen on her window. He says he didn’t tell officers at first, because he was “unwilling to admit I had done anything wrong.”

During a brutal hour-long cross-examination, in which Carrillo looked uncomfortable, emotional and shaken at times, prosecutor Cody Hunt asked which hand he had broken the screen with and put it inside her bedroom, because he had two beers in one hand, and his cell phone to the other. It had been established previously in the trial that his boxer briefs did not have pockets, and Hunt surmised that he must have put his hand holding the cell phone inside her window. He then intimated that Carrillo took pictures inside the woman’s bedroom. Hunt informed Carrillo during his cross-examination that he had a copy of everything on his cell phone, to which Carrillo replied he knew. Nothing from the phone was entered into evidence.

The supervisor admitted that he has a problem with alcohol and ego, but those aren’t illegal. What’s really being discussed is whether he peeked inside the woman’s apartment to which he says he did not. He did admit knocking on her door at 3:30 in the morning in his underwear and walking around to her back patio through the gate because he thought he saw a light on coming out of the sliding glass door in the back. But he maintained that he did not have a recollection of whether or not he looked into the apartment, and at one point explicitly said he did not look into the apartment.

He did admit hoping to spark a sexual relationship with the woman whom he called “very attractive,” even after being dropped off by his girlfriend from a nightclub about an hour and a half prior. When asked by Hunt, Carrillo stated that same woman who dropped him off that night is still his girlfriend today, though she was not in court at the time of his testimony.

The trial resumed at 1:30pm Thursday and the defense did not redirect the cross examination. The jury went to deliberation after closing arguments by defense and prosecution lawyers. Follow @nicolasgrizzle on twitter for updates.

Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo took the stand in his peeking trial on Thursday afternoon saying he has a bigger problem with alcohol than he let on to officers. He said that he told officers he had “two beers and a couple of really strong mixed drinks,” but said he had actually had much more than that. He says he was trying to hide it and was in denial. “At the time, I was accustomed to downplaying and minimalizing the struggle.”

He told his defense attorney Chris Andrian there were two reasons why he went over to Jane Doe’s apartment at 3:30 that morning: “The fact that I was drinking” was one and “I was hoping to rekindle some kind of relationship” was the other. He later admitted, under cross-examination, that there really was no relationship to begin with, and he was basing his perception off of two brief interactions.

“My sense of ego,” “My sense of entitlement,” and “My sense of arrogance made me think it was a good idea to go over to Jane Doe’s house,” Carrillo told the defense. “It was selfish,” he said. “It had nothing to do with Jane Doe, only with me.”

He added, “There is no excuse.”

Career admitted during his testimony that he had damaged Jane Doe’s bedroom screen on her window. He says he didn’t tell officers at first, because he was “unwilling to admit I had done anything wrong.”

During a brutal hour-long cross-examination, in which Carrillo looked uncomfortable, emotional and shaken at times, prosecutor Cody Hunt asked which hand he had broken the screen with and put it inside her bedroom, because he had two beers in one hand, and his cell phone to the other. It had been established previously in the trial that his boxer briefs did not have pockets, and Hunt surmised that he must have put his hand holding the cell phone inside her window. He then intimated that Carrillo took pictures inside the woman’s bedroom. Hunt informed Carrillo during his cross-examination that he had a copy of everything on his cell phone, to which Carrillo replied he knew. Nothing from the phone was entered into evidence.

The supervisor admitted that he has a problem with alcohol and ego, but those aren’t illegal. What’s really being discussed is whether he peeked inside the woman’s apartment to which he says he did not. He did admit knocking on her door at 3:30 in the morning in his underwear and walking around to her back patio through the gate because he thought he saw a light on coming out of the sliding glass door in the back. But he maintained that he did not have a recollection of whether or not he looked into the apartment, and at one point explicitly said he did not look into the apartment.

He did admit hoping to spark a sexual relationship with the woman whom he called “very attractive,” even after being dropped off by his girlfriend from a nightclub about an hour and a half prior. When asked by Hunt, Carrillo stated that same woman who dropped him off that night is still his girlfriend today, though she was not in court at the time of his testimony.

The trial resumed at 1:30pm Thursday and the defense did not redirect the cross examination. The jury went to deliberation immediately after the lunch break.

Day 2 of the Efren Carrillo peeping trial in Sonoma County Superior Court wrapped up a little after 4 pm today without the widely anticipated appearance of Carrillo himself on the witness stand. It’s a wide-open question as to whether he’ll do so on Day 3. Judge Gary A. Medvigy will reconvene the proceedings Thursday at 10:30, and it’s expected that the defense will wrap up its case in fairly short order, based on housecleaning chatter between opposing lawyers and Medvigy after the jury was excused for the day. The afternoon featured testimony from Santa Rosa Police Department officers and technicians who were involved in the Feb. 2013 arrest of Carrillo, a Sonoma County Supervisor who is charged with a single misdemeanor count of peeping after showing up at a neighbor’s house, drunk, nearly naked, and carrying a couple of bottles of Pliny the Elder. During their questioning of the police, the defense appeared to be attempting to impugn the integrity of the neighbor, identified only as Jane Doe, by highlighting that this was not the first time Carrillo and she had interacted — he’d already shown up at her door once before, with a bottle of wine. Carrillo’s attorneys highlighted that Jane Doe told police she was wrapped in what one officer said was a “towel thing” when she answered the door, only to find Carrillo with some wine. He hugged her and tried to kiss her, she claimed. Said one officer: “She felt that it was an uncomfortable meeting.” Yet there appeared to be some inconsistency insofar as what Jane Doe was actually wearing, which the defense highlighted. Another officer interviewed Jane Doe later in the investigation and told the court she was wearing “jeans skirt and a tank top” that day. Whatever she was wearing, Jane Doe told the police she was “grossed out and disgusted” by his visit — it was “weird and creepy.” Judge Medvigy told the lawyers that he’d prepared jury instructions based on the testimony offered so far, but that he would amend them if Carrillo in fact takes the stand tomorrow. Defense lawyers said they were considering calling another witness who would provide photographs taken at Carrillo’s apartment that showed, essentially, that Carrillo was a bachelor-victim: The photos depicted half-empty booze bottles and lots of garbage. Medvigy was a little perplexed at the possible move, or, in his word, “surprised,” that the defense would offer the photos. But the basic thrust of the defense appears to be that that Carrillo had an alcohol problem and Jane Doe may have answered the door in a towel-thing on another occasion. Without coming right out and saying as much (wise move, given that the jury is made up of 10 women and 2 men), there was an unsavory whiff of “she asked for it” in the courtroom air this afternoon.