The standard of review of the trial court’s removal of a juror during deliberations is a heightened abuse of discretion standard. The juror misconduct must appear as a “demonstrable reality.” The trial court gave six reasons for dismissing a juror, concluding he was refusing to deliberate and refusing to follow instructions. However, the evidence supporting these reasons could just as easily be viewed as “the reactions of juror for whom English was a second language, who was palpably under considerable stress as a result of sitting as a finder of fact in a murder trial, the impatience of his fellow jurors, and the trial court’s questioning, and who appears, for whatever reasons, to have been the sole holdout among the twelve.” However, principles of double jeopardy did not bar retrial in these circumstances.