"micky" wrote in message news:
to8h6jpohr575epeq74tv50d1cg2qlm2r8@4ax.com...
In the hunter biden case, the jury took a vote very early and it was
6-6. One juror interviewed said something not surpising, that he voted
not guilty not because he thought that but because he wanted to discuss
all the evidence.
But what would happen if everyone voted not-guilty because they all
wanted to take more time for discussion?
Or if everyone voted guilty, because that was their current opinion, but
they too wanted to discuss it?
Does this happen?
Are they stuck with their vote? Do they get guidance from the judge or >printed instructions on how to avoid a first vote becoming the final
vote.
The jury runs its deliberations. If they all choose to vote not guilty initially just because they want to prolong discussions, I imagine they
would just agree to do some discussions before doing a final vote. The
votes they take informally don't really count per se until they agree it is
the final vote and they fill out the official forms. The idea of voting not guilty initially to force discussions seems inspired by the movie 12 Angry
Men, where 11 jurors thought the defendant was guilty and the one holdout
was Henry Fonda who said Not Guilty and caused the discussions to go on. In reality, the default SHOULD be Not Guilty until a jury has evaluated the evidence and agrees it points to Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
--
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)