Hi again AZlawyer,
1) Can you please clarify how a jury or foreman reaches a hung jury conclusion? Is there a prescribed, or typical, time-frame or number of ballots before such a decision is reached, and how is this communicated to the judge?
2) What are the judges options if the jury hangs? I have heard that if there is, for example, one hold-out juror, this juror can be replaced with an alternate? Is this true? It sounds too bizarre to be true, and seems completely at odds with the reasons behind a random draw of final jurors in the first place.
3) I'm having a little difficulty trying to express this next question so I hope you can bear with me... What I'm trying to ascertain is whether jurors, in filling out their ballots, are being asked to weigh the innocence or guilt of the defendant in terms of the State's case/hypothesis, or in terms of their 'own' evaluations of all the evidence. For example, could a juror disagree with fundamental claims by the State (e.g. gunshot last) and still find JA guilty of M1? If so, and I assume it is so, the more important question becomes, based on your experience, how likely do you think the risk is that a juror(s) will misunderstand their duty, such that they may say "well, I don't buy the gunshot last, that would make it look more like a heat of passion, so I'm going to say Murder 2?", WITHOUT trying to determine 'for themselves' what occurred, and assign guilt accordingly. This issue goes to the heart of my concerns since closing arguments by Nurmi. I feel that he muddied the waters and poked real holes in the State's version of events. I realize as you've said previously that JM was not there to prove exactly how things went down, only that there was intention and premeditation. However, unfortunately IMO, JM DID argue steadfastly that the gunshot was last, and this to me is close to impossible. If I'm a juror, I'm arguing strongly that while the State's sequencing was wrong, JA is absolutely guilty of M1. But I'm not a juror, so I'm just nervous... Sorry for rambling, I guess my question boils down to a) is the duty of the juror to determine guilt or innocence based on their own assessment of the evidence, versus determining whether they accept the State's version of events, and b) how often do jurors misunderstand this duty? I hope this inquiry makes sense