Sure does. The Judge will remove everyone from the room except the bailiff and the record-keeper and poll the jury; directly asking each person what their verdict is and if their verdict is being influenced by anything outside of the evidence.
If they were to say that they are afraid of riots, the judge could dismiss them and recall alternates to replace them. Once they say they're afraid of riots, they're no longer being an impartial juror and it would be unconstitutional for the judge to allow them to remain on the jury as it would violate Kyle's right to a fair trial.
As far as I know, this is a very rare occurrence. But this case has been pretty wacky altogether anyway.
The Judge can ask each juror what their verdict is at this particular time? That is fucked. I could understand asking about external influence impacting their ability to reach a decision; but asking their position seems terribly unconstitutional.
Yup….can happen multiple times depending on the judge. The foreman need to tell the judge that they are hopelessly deadlocked…if not, he’ll send them back to review the evidence again.
That's tampering with the jury isn't it? Threatening to riot to get the result you want.
I hope the jury makes its decision on the merit of the case alone.
They will once the judge polls the jury and sends them back into deliberations.
Oh Snap! Is this a real thing that happens???
Sure does. The Judge will remove everyone from the room except the bailiff and the record-keeper and poll the jury; directly asking each person what their verdict is and if their verdict is being influenced by anything outside of the evidence.
If they were to say that they are afraid of riots, the judge could dismiss them and recall alternates to replace them. Once they say they're afraid of riots, they're no longer being an impartial juror and it would be unconstitutional for the judge to allow them to remain on the jury as it would violate Kyle's right to a fair trial.
As far as I know, this is a very rare occurrence. But this case has been pretty wacky altogether anyway.
Interesting insight, thanks.
WOW. Thank you for the detailed reply.
This does not seem to be so implausible for this case.
The Judge can ask each juror what their verdict is at this particular time? That is fucked. I could understand asking about external influence impacting their ability to reach a decision; but asking their position seems terribly unconstitutional.
Yup….can happen multiple times depending on the judge. The foreman need to tell the judge that they are hopelessly deadlocked…if not, he’ll send them back to review the evidence again.
How can there be a deadlock? From what I've been reading (I've never even been in a court), the verdict of guilty must be unanimous, I believe(d).
Do all 12 jurors have to agree on either guilty or not guilty???
Hope so