This question is not “for a friend” lol. The evidence points to an honest guilty verdict.
Location: California, USA.
This pertains to a trial in the US District Court, btw.
Context for the curious:
We found the defendant guilty. One juror agreed he was guilty despite believing they had a reasonable doubt. They voted guilty anyway. The defense polled the jury one final time and the doubtful juror took a few seconds before affirming they found the defendant guilty.
After the trial closed, the judge came to thank us for our service and gave us an opportunity to ask questions about the mechanics of our legal system. We were also able to thank the judge for the snacks they personally provided!
The doubtful juror asked to speak to the judge privately after the fact. I believe the juror wanted to express to the judge she had a reasonable doubt despite voting guilty and affirming a guilty finding after the Defense polled the jury.
Comments
NAL, never even served jury duty, but I believe once verdict is entered, that’s it. One reason is that someone could potentially get to a juror after the trial and try and get them to say they wanted to change their vote.
I think in many if not all places, they will poll the jury in open court to ask them “is the verdict entered your true verdict?” Just to short-circuit such a possibility. If the verdict is entered and each juror affirms that they agree with the verdict entered, they don’t really have much to say after that if they suddenly got cold feet about their vote.
IMO, once the jury decides, it is recorded. People can have second thoughts, however, it has been decided.
They had a lot of different points to voice their opinion and chose to vote guilty rethinking it after is too late. Unless they are saying they were bullied into it or something like that.