Jurors deciding the fate of Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo could not reach a verdict Friday after about six hours of deliberations and will return after the weekend to continue their work.

The panel was split 11-1 on whether Carrillo, 33, peeked into a woman's apartment in the middle of the night while lurking outside in just his socks and underwear. It was unknown whether they were leaning toward guilt or innocence.

Judge Gary Medvigy encouraged members to forge ahead, saying they shouldn't be afraid to take "a new approach" or adopt a "fresh perspective" in considering the evidence.

"Let me know if I can do anything further to help you," Medvigy said before he released them back into the jury room late Friday afternoon. They were ordered to return Monday morning.

The development came after a day of false starts for the 10-woman, two-man jury that began weighing the evidence after three days of testimony ended late Thursday.

At lunchtime, the panel notified the judge they had reached some sort of verdict, which would be read at 1:30 p.m. But when they returned from the break, they sent another note asking the judge how to proceed if one juror had changed his or her mind.

Medvigy told them to continue deliberating until they reached a "unanimous agreement" or became deadlocked.

Ninety minutes later, there was another setback when the judge learned at least two women jurors had been contacted at the courthouse by a San Francisco TV reporter. Jurors are admonished to not speak to anyone during a trial.

Lawyers on both sides expressed concern about potential juror tampering, and the judge halted deliberations to quiz jurors to assure they could remain unbiased.

One woman explained a journalist approached her in the hallway on Tuesday, asked how she was and what she did for a living. Another woman said a reporter asked if the jury was on a break and if they had a verdict. All said the contact would not impact their ability to be impartial.

The judge found the contact was inappropriate but would not imperil deliberations.

"I'm gravely disappointed by the lack of professionalism by the press or at least one member, but I don't believe any misconduct occurred by any member of the jury," Medvigy said.

Finally, the jury announced it was unable to reach a verdict on the main count of peeking. Jurors can consider a lesser charge of attempted peeking.

The forewoman told the judge they were stuck 11-1. She said she did not believe any additional instruction or clarifications would help. The court will convene at 10:45 a.m. Monday.

Carrillo, Sonoma County's 5th District supervisor and a once-ascendant political star, betrayed little emotion in the courtroom. But he hugged his lawyer, Chris Andrian, and clapped his back before leaving the courthouse for the day.

"We got to wait to see what happens," Andrian said.

Prosecutor Cody Hunt, who tried the case for the state attorney general, declined to comment on the day's proceedings.

In their deliberations, jurors must decide whether prosecutors have proven three specific elements of the crime of peeking, punishable by up to six months in jail.

To convict Carrillo, jurors must first agree Carrillo "delayed, lingered, prowled or wandered" on the private property of another.

If the evidence showed he did, jurors then must find Carrillo didn't have a lawful purpose for being there.

Finally, jurors must decide if Carrillo peeked in a door or window of the inhabited structure, although no one needed to be home at the time.

If the panel finds Carrillo not guilty of peeking, it may conclude he was guilty of attempted peeking. For a conviction, they must believe he took a direct step to look in a door or window and that he intended to look inside.

If the jury cannot reach a unanimous decision, the judge could declare a mistrial. Prosecutors would have the option to retry the case.

A half-naked Carrillo was arrested July 13 outside a Santa Rosa woman's apartment after she called 911 twice starting at about 3:40 a.m. to report someone outside her window. Police found a ripped screen on a bedroom window.

Prosecutors are not required to prove a motive, but Carrillo testified Thursday that he wanted to drink and have sex with the woman, whom he barely knew.

Carrillo testified that he had an inflated sense of ego and believed the woman would be open to his advances. He also said he has had a drinking problem since high school.

He acknowledged knocking on the woman's door, walking around to the back of her apartment and ripping the window screen, but denied looking into her home.