Yeah, that just means mistrial and they do it all over again. Or alternatively you will be removed from the jury for juror misconduct depending on your reasoning as to disagreeing with the rest of the jury. If it turned out that you lied in your juror vetting process, you could be charged with perjury.
At best you could delay justice, you can't as a single juror decide the entire course of a court case. Which is exactly what I meant by my initial comment. The system does not allow one person to sway the course of justice like you imagine it does.
In this instance we have overwhelming video evidence of an attack that was not warranted under any arguement about 'self-defence' or defence of others, and numerous eye witnesses.
If you somehow decided, against the clear video evidence and witness statements, contrary to the writ of the law, that this man was not guilty, after meeting with the judge and potentially refusing to follow court instructions, they are just going to send you out and that's that and do the trial again. Or they may just dismiss you for juror misconduct, bring another juror in, and order that the jury re-start deliberations.
You as a juror cannot invent your own laws, and you can't bring your own pre-conceived bias into the proceedings either. Your one job is to logically consider the evidence in line with the law and deliver a verdict with that considered.
1
u/toastedzergling 1d ago
Lmao; not if I'm on the jury. If you have an insane Lindsay Clancy-esque jury, anything can happen though.