Polling a jury after their verdict, what's the point?

Factual Questions
20

I think what happened in the case above is that the jury filled out the form with a series of decisions that contradicted each other.

Sort of like, “We think the plaintiff proved his case in nearly every aspect of his case. So he loses.”

My criminal case has two questions:

  1. Was the defendant guilty or not guilty of armed robbery?
  2. If so, did he use a gun?

The civil case was an unlawful detainer (eviction) case.
We could

  1. Find for the plaintiff (landlord and boot the guy out)
  2. Find for the defendant (let him stay, no questions asked)
  3. Find for the defendant, but make him pay some portion of his rent due.

We went for 3 mainly because we thought that the landlord had failed to maintain the property well enough to make it habitable.

After the case was over, we found out that the defendant was a professional pain in the ass tenant. He knew how to work the system so he could live pretty much anywhere rent-free. Sort of like the movie “Pacific Heights”.