This is it in a nutshell. Without evidence (NOT speculation) that the conduct of the defense attorneys in the Peterson case prejudiced the jurors in the Vaughn case, then this argument goes no where and simply relies on the assumption that jurors were in fact prejudiced when the legal presumption is that jurors are qualified unless and until there’s evidence they’re not. Voir dire is where the Vaughn attorney should have questioned the potential jurors about the attitudes and beliefs, including attitudes towards defense attorneys generally and reaction to the Peterson defense attorneys in particular.

The other point is that there’s no good limit to this argument. What’s the geographic limit? Does it only apply to cases in Chicago? Wherever the Peterson defense attorneys’ actions were broadcast? That might include the entire USA. Also, what’s the temporal limit? Cases tried within a week of the Peterson defense attorneys’ actions? A month? A year? When and where does this presumed prejudice end? The lack of any principled limitation shows the wisdom of presuming the jurors are qualified and putting the burden on defense counsel to show prejudicial attitudes or beliefs through questioning during voir dire.

I didn’t know if he was guilty or not … I hadn’t made up my mind one way or the other. What I did not like was the general atmosphere in the room which was, no discussion necessary

They were operating on emotion because, if the truth be told, the defense atty was very, very good.

As I said, I had no idea if the guy was guilty or not but there was no way I was going to walk out of that room without some actual deliberation.

I think one of the worst things a jury can do is take a straw vote immediately … you know, just to see where we stand. Bad business.

The actual deliberations were intense … extremely so. The final holdout, a man, did some real soul searching and it was agonizing to watch. After we delivered our verdict I figured we’d be free to go but the Judge kept us in the Jury Room and stayed with us the entire time while the Court Room, Halls, parking lots etc. were “cleared”. We were his Jury and it was his job to protect us. We were there for 3 additional hours and when we finally walked out, all our cars were parked right by the doors.

During that 3 hour time the Judge talked to us and when the man who had gone through all the agonizing found out that what he had been most concerned about was not even real … a legal contrivance if you will … I thought somebody was going to have to protect the defense atty from him.

One thing I did learn, if one is looking for truth in a Court Room, it’s going to be damed difficult to find … but it’s there.

Bingo.

Should the short period of deliberation cause the court to consider a new trial or should judges ask jurors to deliberate longer in returning such fast verdicts? The answer of all courts in the past that I know of has been no. What do you think?” (JT)

At last … a chance to seriously discuss something about Jury duty and deliberations and the strong sense I have that arriving at a quick verdict is just plain wrong.

Now I only have 1 experience but it has stuck with me for years.

We went into the jury room to begin deliberations. It took about a half an hour to get settled and elect a Foreman. It was suggested by someone that we take a straw voice vote to see where we stood. The Foreman agreed. I objected and stated that, in my opinion, any vote should be paper and that I didn’t think we should start with a vote. I won the paper but lost taking an initial vote.

Sure enough only 1 vote was for guilty and the rest were not guilty. Well, well … guess it had to be “deliberated”.

Three and one-half days later, after a thorough discussion, several disagreements, 3 trips to the judge for clarification, a complete review of the evidence and several reviews of specifically requested questions and answers … a verdict of guilty was rendered. A complete turn around from the original straw vote and a decision with which each and every juror was comfortable because they had taken the time necessary to study, understand, and deliberate.

Deliberations are god dam important and it takes time to do the job properly.

The court could create a formula to decide how much time would be required to debate the issue. But if the formula was X + 2N / 3 or n^2 + 4 / x it doesn’t matter which is used because both are artificial constructs. Choosing either formula is a choice of the court and not that of the jury which is given the responsibility to decide.

Moreover, with a few constraints generally relating to sequestering and application of the law, juries are instructed not to use outside influences such as tv news, opinions of outsiders, etc I believe it would encroach on the perogative of the jury to introduce an outside influence such as a judge’s admonishment of a time requirement into their deliberations.

I believe it can also be demonstrated that a time constraint can cause a different descision than if there was no time constraint.

I somewhat wonder if some feel a swift decision of a jury is tantamount to a jury nullification. I would counter if the decision is obvious to the jury a swift decision is expected. Do we place such time constraints on a judge?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/27/1239111/mississippi-county-jails-kids-for-school-dress-code-violations-tardiness-doj-alleges/

How incompetent does a defense lawyer have to be to allow another trial affect his client’s trial, not to ask for a mistrial because of potential bias?

How incompetent and/or corrupt does a judge have to be to allow that to happen, regardless of whether the defense lawyer raised the issue of bias?

Did voir dire questions seek that out, or was it all an afterthought?

Some people do anyway. Some know better than to start an argument they can’t win.

I’m inclined to go with precedent here as answer that unless deliberations were ridiculously and suspiciously short, like five or ten minutes, that the length of deliberations is largely irrelevant to the outcome. If valid questions arise, the timing will take care of itself, but if the evidence and reasoning are sufficient? Why penalize juries for being decisive? They are there taking time out from their lives to perform a valuable civic duty. If they do so efficiently, then more power to them.