TruthD...
Thought more about your perspective on what there is to deliberate and how long it "should" take. Here's the speediest thoughtful deliberation scenario I can imagine (it assumes a verdict of DP, because that's what I think they'll vote):
1. They decompress and vent about mysteries, delays, finally being able to discuss the case.
2. They select a foreperson.
3. They review jury instructions, as requested, and inform the bailiff of their deliberating schedule.
4. They settle in and decide how they will go about deliberating.
5. They don't think it's necessary to go down the list one by one because most of them walked back thinking she deserved the DP.
6. They don't question the first jury's finding of especially cruel, because the autopsy photos tell them everything they need to know about that, and JM has just reminded them about the excruciating pain Travis Alexander experienced as he was being murdered.
7. Precisely because so many of them have already decided for death, they wonder why the first jury hung. All of the jurors agree that they are determined to reach a consensus, no matter how long it takes. They feel invested in every way, and they want to be the jury that gets it done. So they're good with being methodical and getting it right.
8. They realize they have forgotten most of what was said in week 1 about premeditation, and a lot of other things they think might be important.
9. They realize they never heard the full opposing stories about what actually happened on June 4. The DT is suggesting a story that suggests she snapped between sex and shower but they don't say what might have happened to make her snap. They're clearly suggesting that Travis triggered the "event." They're definitely saying (in closing) that Travis invited her to his house, so that also suggest that whatever premeditation there was must have been after she arrived. The State is saying she wasn't invited (in closing), that she killed him with a gun and a knife (in closing), and that they must accept the verdict of premeditated murder.
10. They find out once they begin deliberations that all guilt phase exhibits are available to them. It's a huge pile of material, and coupled with 12 sets of 5 months’ worth of notes, they decide they need to focus in on what the group finds most important to recheck, verify, or question. They ask for and review a list of exhibits and make an initial decision which if any of the exhibits they think they might need.
11. Discussion leads to the emergence of two questions they agree are pivotal:
?1: how far ahead of time did she premeditate the murder? They've been specifically instructed that premeditation has no specific time frame. The first jury found premeditation, but the same rule applied, so either the DT or the State's version of June 4 presented to them could theoretically be true. If they become convinced that she premeditated the murder while in California, then everything else the DT has presented as fact becomes at the very least, extremely suspect. (If even one juror wavers on that point, I think it's going to take them a long time to sift through the evidence to convince a holdout).
?2. Is she mentally ill, and if she is, does her mental illness explain why she killed him?
12. They spent hours- half a day, even, sorting out the question of premeditation, in part because unlike the first jury, the presentation of June 4 was exceedingly brief, and very incomplete, including the important question of what her defense said happened. Ultimately they agree the premeditation began in CA.
13. Next they discuss her mental illness. They quickly reject PTSD, because they don't believe Geffner and think it's irrelevant. PTSD can't explain why she would premeditate a murder 2 months after she left and 1,000 miles away. BPD? They all are sure she has BPD because they trust DeMarte and because both sides said she did. BPD. BPD...DeMarte has told them BPD explains a lot of her behavior BEFORE the murder. But...she also has told them BPD doesn't mean JA couldn't distinguish between right and wrong. She could. That means she chose to murder him and knew what she was choosing. There was no snapped of any kind.
14. Their final and most important question then, is whether or not her mental illness is mitigating. That is a completely subjective question, and one that requires 12 people providing and discussing their own opinions and beliefs, even if all 12 agree at the onset that her mental illness is not mitigating.
There is so much I can imagine they would want to talk about....did she ever accept responsibility for what she did? Did she show remorse? The pedo lie. Her letter to his family. Etc. A lot of that evidence and argument was extremely powerful and disturbing. Even though they'll all be able to talk about whatever they want to after the trial, I can easily imagine wanting to take their time to talk amongst themselves about how and why individual pieces of evidence affected them. Seems like human nature to me.
15. They take a vote after it seems they have reached a consensus. They are unanimously in favor of the DP. They spend a little while talking about how it feels to have reached a decision, and what they think will happen next.
16. They discuss and decide how to handle media requests, feeling out who wants to stay in touch afterwards, and exchanging contact info.
17. They take a deep breath as the foreperson fills out the verdict forms.
18. They notify the bailiff they have reached a verdict.
How many hours would all that take? My best guess is through early morning on Monday, verdict before lunchtime.
