Jury Deliberations

[tstew]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I think they do need tAlk after the evidence is presented. I am sure there are things to work through, and even ask the court to clarify some of the presentations/evidence.

I understand. But couldn't they do this on an individual basis. I'm just wondering if there is not something inherently wrong with having members of a jury of your peers hear all the evidence and arguments, reach an individual conviction as to guilt or innocence, then have that changed over the course of days of stalemate and pressure. I'm wondering if at the very least there needs to be a cap on deliberations (measured in hours as opposed to days) just to insure that all the evidence is understood and considered but not long enough to have personal convictions changed out of duress, pressure, frustration, weakness, or any other thing that can arise in days of being locked into a room. At some point it seems it goes from deliberation to negotiation.