So what that 10-second vote really just a “straw” vote? During the hour-long discussions, were you guys actively looking for anything more you might have missed? Were you discussing with the attitude that the issue was still open, and you might change your minds? Or did you (you yourself, or all of you) consider your original 10-second vote to be final?
[anecdote]
I got as far as voir dire a few years ago, in a child molestation case. There too, during voir dire, there was extensive emphasis on the question: How much weight would you, the prospective juror, give to a child’s testimony? There seemed to be some amount of open skepticism, and the McMartin case was even mentioned (as possibly being a case that forever poisoned the public’s mind about child abuse prosecutions that rely heavily on children’s testimony).
[/anecdote]
We discussed it as if the issue was closed, just going over and agreeing that the prosecutors didn’t make a case.
I actually thought about the McMartin case during voir dire. That fascinated me when it happened. But I don’t think it influenced me regarding this trial.
Interesting that a religious question was raised in discussion: I’ve heard (no cite) that both prosecutors and defenders object to clergy on juries. That they might have a strong sense of right and wrong and be judgmental; and be too sympathetic and forgiving. I suppose it depends- No experience, myself.
A religious question wasn’t raised in court nor during our discussion. A poster upthread raised a question about Christians and their sense of beliefs.