The jury of 12, including six white people and six people who are Black or multiracial, will be sequestered, and the duration of deliberations depends on the jury. The jurors are isolated in an undisclosed hotel and cannot go home to their families until a verdict is reached.
A sequestered jury typically deliberates after the close of normal business hours, to finish its work faster. Jurors will choose a foreperson to lead the group through deliberations. After that, no one really knows. Mark Osler, a professor at the University of St.
Thomas School of Law, said typically jurors will take a straw poll to see where everyone stands. If everyone is in agreement right off the bat, sometimes a case is over — but sometimes jurors decide to talk about it anyway. If there is disagreement, then the deliberations begin in earnest.
The jury will be given a laptop computer with the audio and video evidence from the trial. They will have a large monitor in the room to view the items.
Under prior court rules, jurors had to return to court to play videos. But in this case, they will be able to view video evidence as they need to during deliberations. Some of the evidence presented at trial, called demonstrative evidence, will not be provided.
Those include items like legal definitions of terms brought up in court, or graphics used to explain expert analysis. Usually the court provides the jury with written forms of all possible verdicts, so that it will be much easier for them to choose a proper verdict form after reaching a decision. In most instances, the verdict in a criminal case must be unanimous.
All federal cases require a unanimous decision. In most occasions, deliberation produces an agreed upon verdict, but chances of hung juries cannot be disregarded which can lead to a mistrial. If the jurors are unable to agree on a verdict even after the completion of debate and discussion, it is known as a hung jury.
In such a stage, the case remains undecided, and it may be tried again at a later date before a new jury. Home Information. Find Attorney. For Attorneys. We Help!
After observing hundreds and hundreds of mock juries deliberate, and interviewing dozens of actual jurors in post-trial sessions, we have gained many insights into the process that generally takes place inside the jury deliberation room. There is a method to the madness. The jury's first task upon entering the jury deliberation room is to select a foreperson. Generally, one individual in the group will pose the question, ''Who's done this before?
Next, the group evaluates the leadership potential of these individuals. During voir dire, whether oral voir dire or on a jury questionnaire, counsel should inquire as to an individuals past leadership experience.
Exploring leadership roles in civic organizations, and at work is an important tool for identifying the individuals who will have the most influence in the deliberation room. Statistically, a foreperson is generally likely to be male, over the age of 40, with two plus years of college, and some management experience.
When a female is foreperson, she is generally likely to be in her mid-thirties, with four years of college and single. Of course, these ''statistical characteristics'' must be understood in light of the fact that each panel is unique and represents a distinct entity.
An individual who is a leader in one group of twelve, may be utterly silent in a different group of twelve For example, a housewife who meets weekly with other parents of school children to plan fund raising activities, may be a leader or an active participant in that group. This same individual, when in a group of twelve community residents with differing interests, education levels and experiences, may take less of a leadership role.
Therefore, in examining the ''leadership'' of any perspective juror, it must be done in the context of the other jurors. Trial attorneys should remain alert during their voir dire, to individuals with strong leadership characteristics and prior jury experience.
In looking at the panel as a whole, the relative participation of each group member will fall broadly into one of three categories. Generally, on any panel of 12 individuals, social science research has revealed that three or four ''persuaders'' emerge in the group. These individuals tend to be the ones who build coalitions and are responsible for the introduction of new issues for the jury's consideration.
Thus, although there might be one ''foreperson'' the bulk of the discussions really take place among the three or four persuaders.
In fact, when a foreperson is ineffective in handling the organization of the deliberations, a secondary foreperson tends to emerge and unofficially takes on the role of the foreperson, without ever actually being identified as such.
The next group of individuals in the jury deliberation room are the ''participants. They tend to be the joiners, and will follow and support other members, but generally don't tend to build coalitions themselves. Finally, there is a group of three or four individuals known as the ''non-participants. Their primary concerns are: ''How long is this going to take? In most groups, jurors follow the judge's admonition to avoid taking straw polls or immediately voting on the issues upon entering the deliberation room.
One juror may suggest such a thing, but that tends to be quickly overruled by other group members who prefer to spend some time discussing the issues ''in general. Jurors have been unable to discuss the issue for days or weeks. Suddenly they are given the liberty to offer opinions and comments.
Many side conversations erupt during this initial phase, and the expression of a great deal of pent up frustration emerges. Jurors will complain about the pace of the case, different characteristics of the attorneys, the tedium of the testimony of various individuals, etc.
0コメント