Hatfield
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2012
- Messages
- 17,014
- Reaction score
- 59,131
I've been the foreperson a coupla' times and sat on a murder trial jury. In every case, the jury wanted to go over the instructions before the first vote to be certain our discussions were not forbidden in some way. After putting in the time and attention for the whole trial, no one wants to screw it up on some technicality. I think this jury is really trying to bullet-proof their verdict and even though it may seem "simple" fromthe gallery, reading and discussing the instructions is time consuming. If some juror(s) needs some convincing to feel OK about the death penalty, it will take time to hear from other jurors and questions may come up. Let these twelve people do their job. I will be OK with any outcome because they are the only ones who have to live with their decision.
I agree that the instructions themselves could have been what they were going over and they may have asked about the procedures in case they cannot decide.
I used to have trouble understanding how coming to a concensus seems to go against individual decisions, but someone explained it well for me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having your mind changed as other jurors explain their own reasoning to you. I would think it would be easier to convince people to go down to Life though, rather than trying to convince people to go with DP. But it all depends on how many are going for which type.
What is really weird to me is letting the judge decide whether Life is either LWOP or LWP. Why not let the jury decide that too.