And why the jury may have come to the verdict they did. If the thoughts in this commentary are true about the effects of sequestration on juries, then something needs to change in how juries are kept from outside influences so they do not get into a group think mode. Maybe jurors should not be allowed to stay together as a group for long trials. Maybe their families should be sequestered along with them.
I have no good suggestion but the system as it is did not work in this case as shown in the statements of Juror #3.
Casey Jury Brainwash
The Daily Beast, Friday, July 8, 2011, 5:33am (PDT)
The inevitable juror cameos have begun. Juror Number Three, now known as Jennifer Ford, spoke to Nightline. She came forward to give her explanation for the shocking acquittal that freed Casey Anthony of any criminal liability for the killing of her baby, Caylee Anthony.
No doubt she meant to justify the verdict. On that score, she failed. But she succeeded in showing us a great deal about the dynamics and thinking of this jury—significantly, this sequestered jury.
<SNIP>
Unfortunately—and psychological studies bear this out—a group that is kept together for any length of time becomes more and more alike, more in sync, as time goes on. (By the way, this phenomenon is also in play with regard to proximity to the defendant. The longer the jury is in contact with the defendant, the less sinister he or she appears. In this way, familiarity with Casey Anthony turned her from a potential murderer to an abused, perhaps disturbed, but certainly nonthreatening, child.) Add this phenomenon to the natural desire to avoid contentiousness and seek harmony and you can see how individuality begins to erode in a sequestered jury.
More:
http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/politics/casey-jury-brainwash-1694371.story