Asimovian – They took a plea. It’s very unusual to to this after the defendants have testified. This pretty much sums up what happened. No one on the jury said anything formally, but it was fair to say it would have been a very short deliberation.
After the plea, the court allowed us to talk to the lawyers. The defense attorneys said that they had been urging their clients to take a plea from the very start, but they had refused until then.
Jeff Lichtman – The basic questions included
“Do you know of the case?”
“Do you know any of the defendants?”
“Do you know any of the witnesses?”
“Do you know anyone in the DA’s office?”
“Do you know any firefighters?” (because it was an arson case, no doubt)
“Do you have any prejudices that might affect your judgement? (the defendants were Guyanese)”
“Were you on a jury before? How did that go?”
One guy hit a trifecta: On question was about arson cases, and he started out "I work in insurance and these arson cases … " He was told to stop talking at that point.
Later they asked about knowing police, and he said he knew a few police and would believe them more readily than others. Finally, he admitted he knew the DA socially. He was the first one dismissed.
You’re also asked about your interests and jobs. I mentioned my interest in science fiction, and, just for the heck of it, I mentioned Doctor Who as my favorite TV show. The DA got up and said it was the first time he had run into another fan, and who was my favorite Doctor. I’m now on the record as saying “David Tennant.” 
I actually thought that would disqualify me, but the defense later told me that they hoped my interest in science fiction might make me more likely to believe their version of events.
The jurors were really just random people, with various jobs. I think I was the only one with a white collar job. We spent a lot of time in the jury room chatting. Since we can’t talk about the case, it’s all small talk. I actually now believe that Twelve Angry Men drama is unlikely simply because you get to know the other jurors pretty well in the course of the trial and would treat them as though they were friends. You’re stuck in a room with them, and can’t talk about the trial, so there’s a certain amount of bonding taking place.
As for the DA, one of the defense witnesses said the DA had asked him to lie on the stand in exchange for getting help with Immigration. This did not please the DA, who said he only told the witness to tell the truth – and he had a transcript to prove it. There was definitely a hint of “Do you want a perjury rap?” in his tone.
Precambrianmollusc – the admonitions only applied outside the courtroom – don’t read about the case (it was in the paper the day after the opening statements. I deliberately didn’t read the paper that day; my wife saw it and asked if the case was in Supreme Court, and recognized the name of the judge, but I didn’t read it until after we were dismissed), don’t discuss the case, report if you’re approached about the case, etc.
We tried to keep a poker face, but when you hear someone say in court, “she was just a piece of ass to me,” laughter is inevitable. You can laugh and react – that’s inevitable.
They do watch you. After the first day, two of the jurors were called in to talk to the judge. One had a terrible cold and was probably asked if she was too sick to continue. The other had admitted to us she had been close to dozing off the day before and the judge had asked about that. But there are no restrictions (the judge could admonish you after the fact).
Things aren’t always serious anyway. On one day, a witness had trouble reading a document, so the judge leant her his glasses. The next day, the DA would show documents and then say, “if you can’t see it, we can get you some glasses.”
