Jut amazed me (I was a lot younger at the point) but no problem coming with guilty with footprints and things, but the second DNA and blood evidence was introduced 'not guilty'.
Then as you say really complex cases, I know it goes against the spirit of the law but I understand why sometimes it's Judge led and in some cases we now have no jury - it would blow their mind and they'd be lost after introductions.
Preconceptions come into it hugely, so does sadly bullying as points get dealt with and frustrations overly flow and it can be less than pretty which carries it's own kind of irony given what you're there for in the first place.
All I say is whether guilty or not, if I'm in the dock, I'm hunting down the defence barrister I saw in action because he was suave, and brilliant and spun everything to create doubt. I the room had been split and not just four 'it' would've got away with it but judge went for majority verdict after a few hours.
It's a fascinating experience though and one (once I'd dealt with the stupidity of it all) I would've freely done for a job lol Because it is unique.
You get the chance mate, jump at it. You'll spend most nights pulling your hair out (if you have any) but it's an experience not to be missed in my humble because everything you're not supposed to do - that Hollywood has jurors doing - pretty much happens and it's fascinating seeing people say guilty after the first hour because of how somebody looks and then all the flip flopping as they tally their own PC world with things and deal with the idea of imprisoning somebody for real when it's no longer a game.
In the jury room even with copious notes, there's a lot of repetition and it is a game of beat the opposition down and if you have a fact they missed it helps, otherwise keep shouting until they give in.
No way is it justice as it's sold to the common man/woman, so I now get why so many get off with things yet others go down and get proven innocent later in the day but 'they' looked 'wrong'.
And yes most people want to be out of there as quick as possible and sadly the quickest way to do that is vote guilty.
For the record the four dissenters on the second charge after we'd already discussed 'it' being guilty on the first charge were the first four to say guilty for the second but they changed their minds when it was clear it would mean a double conviction and they couldn't stomach that.
Nothing to do with evidence, it was their personal tally they had trouble with, those arguing 'it' might be guilty of the first charge but not the second had no problem coming to a second guilty when we heard about the DNA evidence....but they held out flip flopping lol
Get the chance mate, take it, it's an eye opener.
