I voted ‘Hung jury’. No logical reason for this. I’m just a pessimist.
Re talk of hung jury:
Hung juries typically occur when the jury is fairly evenly split:
It is possible for one person to stand up against eleven, but that goes against typical human nature.
I wonder if the judge not dismissing alternates at the start of deliberations decreased the chances of an 11-1 outcome. An isolated Trump leaning juror has to deliberate in relatively good faith or risk the other jurors trying to get the stubborn holdout replaced on grounds of non-cooperation with the process.
Important point! But why would the judge dismiss the alternates before deliberations? Is it discretionary?
I have wondered about this. If a single jury member just states flatly that they will never vote to convict Trump, because he is (insert MAGA slogans here), then what happens? Does the jury foreperson go to the judge and report that one member is biased and not following the proper procedures outlined at jury selection?
No. Alternate jurors are part of every bit of the case until a verdict has been rendered by the original jurors. They remain on call in case a regular juror becomes unable (usually through illness) to continue to serve.
When that happens, an alternate is picked to serve in the place and stead of the lost original juror and deliberations begin anew.
It would be extremely rare to replace a regular juror at this stage of proceedings, but it can happen (accident, sudden death, etc.).
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the process. Jurors are not replaced for being holdouts. They are only replaced for one of the reasons I mentioned above or if actual juror misconduct is alleged with evidence before the jury has reached a verdict. This is a very, very rare occurrence.
I am predicting guilty on half the charges, not guilty on a quarter and a hung jury on the other quarter.
The jury as a whole would probably want to craft a note to the judge to ask if this rose to the level of juror misconduct, but frankly, I don’t think it would. The judge would most likely direct the jury to continue their deliberations and see if they could reach a verdict. When this happens, the judge will often send juries back several times before declaring a mistrial – which is all that would happen. This jury would be excused and there would most likely be a retrial in fairly short order, if only one holdout.
If there was actual juror misconduct discovered, e.g., it is learned that a juror lied during voir dire or has taken evidence outside the courtroom such as forming their verdict on the basis of news reports that they were told to not read during the trial, then yes, that juror could be dismissed and an alternate drawn to replace them.
From a lifetime of newspaper reading, I still think it varies. For example, in at least one Missouri county, “alternate jurors are excused before deliberation begins”. Maybe that doesn’t prove they are always and immediately sent home, but I’m sure I’ve read of it.
As for a Manhattan juror being replaced by an alternate due to refusing to deliberate in good faith, I did not mean to say this actually happens. I still think that deliberating jurors must often realize the alternates were not yet dismissed, and that would discourage bad juror behavior.
There’s a big difference between being sent home and being released from service. We regularly sent our alternate jurors home. They weren’t required to stay in the courthouse. But they remained as alternates and were admonished to continue to avoid watching anything about the trial or discussing it with others. One of my jobs was to call the alternates after the verdict had been taken and let them know they were formally released from their service.
Neither can I. My predictometer has been busted since 2016. I’m pretty sure the sun will set tonight and rise tomorrow. But beyond that, forget it.
I voted “hung jury” despite not being 100% sure of much of anything in the world. No comments to add that haven’t already been made.
Got it.
As recently at 1981, substitution after deliberation was disallowed in New York State (stated on page 161 here). But that obviously changed.
The main thing you got wrong wasn’t this issue. It was the assumption that a juror would be replaced merely for being a holdout.
Re the last post, if I wrote that, I was wrong.
Here is an article on jurors being dismissed for refusal to deliberate in the federal system:
Eliminating the Juror Who "“Refuses to Deliberate”
When I was on a jury, we had one holdout juror who came close to refusing to deliberate, but most of our jury had IMHO great emotional intelligence, and we got past it.
My prediction is of course that no one will refuse to deliberate in this case.
They can be dismissed for cause, but not for being a holdout. Being a holdout might be based on a reason for cause, but most often not.
It leaves an ugly impression to suggest that someone could be dismissed merely for being a holdout – which is why I jumped in to engage in this thread hijack to correct what I believe you were saying. I hope we can drop it now.
Why wouldn’t it? “I refuse to even look at the evidence, or to look at the law. I’m voting to acquit just because I Love Trump!” How is that not misconduct?
Now, if they just kept their mouth shut, and just voted, saying, “I’m not convinced!”, they’d be safe. No one knows what’s in their mind. But if they say something actionable? I think they’d be out on their ass.
It might be. But it’s certainly not automatic. Jury misconduct situations are highly situational. It also depends on the judge and the actual evidence of misconduct, if any. Most judges will not want to appear to be pushing a juror one way or another, which is why I expect most judges, in the absence of very clear misconduct, would err on the side of, “go try again,” and “let the chips fall where they may.” Declaring a mistrial isn’t the worst thing that can happen. Being overturned on appeal and then having a case remanded for retrial is far worse.
The jury has rendered a verdict!
The verdict is in! And there are reports that the jury is not hung on any count.
There are 3^34 = 16,677,181,699,666,569 possible results if we limit ourselves to the three options for each of the thrity-four counts.
Guilty on the counts 1 through 34. Clean sweep.