allycat1208
New Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,172
- Reaction score
- 1
They all have to deliberate and come to a mutual agreement. Usually they begin by taking a secret ballot and seeing what the consensus is. If it is half and half, then usually they will all agree to the lesser charge. I don't think it often happens that a majority will be convinced to agree to a more severe charge. But if there is only one or two that want manslaughter, and the rest want aggravated child abuse, then they may possibly convince the minority to vote for a tougher punishment. [ This comes from my experience 40 years ago working for a defense attorney. We used to 'interview' to some of the jurors by questionnaire afterwards to see what happened, for future reference. ] The major thing I learned was that the jury foreman had a lot of power if they wanted it. It is a group dynamic and eventually everyone wants to come to a successful verdict so they can go home.
The most important issue left, imo, is what the judge drafts for the jury instructions. In this fragile of a circumstantial case, his words can make or break the case for either side.
This goes against what I thought though...because I thought the judge or the attorneys asked during the pre-trial voir-doir if the jurors are easily swayed or can think for themselves? If this is so, it does not make sense that they should be allowed at all to be convinced by another juror member to vote any different way other than what they intended on.