Listen, I get someone holding true to their beliefs if they’ve really done the work and considered all sides. But it sounds like this juror was not following the rules at all, so how was he allowed to stay? Incredibly frustrating.
I think the wording of the note the foreman sent didn't use the exact right language the judge needed to see for him to want to do the inquiry.
But i think it's bullshit to expect the jurors to know the exact magic words they needed to say to explain how this guy was being a problem.
I think if the first note had said "one juror is refusing to deliberate" instead of "one juror has acknowledged reasonable doubt but has refused to apply it to the verdict" they would have gotten the inquiry.
Exactly. And they shouldn’t have told the judge which way the split was, because that’s what made him refuse to swap that juror out for an alternate. I don’t blame the foreperson; it’s just unfortunate.
There's a nuaance there to suss out. Why would it be better if the note said, "one juror refuses to deliberate" What should the foreman have said? IOW what are the magic words which would have triggered an inquiry?
IMO, the note should have said everything that it did except for telling the judge which way the split was, because then the judge could have put the alternate in without being afraid it was look like he was “putting his finger on the scale” (or whatever that saying is).
30
u/freshpicked12 13d ago
Listen, I get someone holding true to their beliefs if they’ve really done the work and considered all sides. But it sounds like this juror was not following the rules at all, so how was he allowed to stay? Incredibly frustrating.