[schaefer]

Different trial (attempted murder), but I too was on a Jury.

At the start of deliberation, it was an even split. Towards the end of deliberation it was 11/12 in favor of returning a verdict of guilty.

However... One juror opened up some bizarre Pandora's box arguing against the fundamental knowability of the universe. How could any fact truly be "known"?

At times, I love conversations like that. But not when a man has been stabbed twelve times and directly pointed to the defendant.

Our jury was hung.

[jrpt]

11/12 should be enough to convict for this very reason: there’s quite possibly one holdout who is totally inane. States have tried allowing non-unanimous juries but the Supreme Court has said it is unconstitutional. The process should be revisited. I actually think it might make more sense to have pods of 3 jurors discuss independently (to avoid groupthink) then require like 11/12 or something along those lines.

[rationalist]

That seems like something to tell the Judge. I don't know how it works, but were there any replacement Jurors? I think the Judge should be able to disqualify that person from being a Juror.

[giardini]

I can see the headline: "Juror Dies Mysteriously in Chambers: Body Bears 11 Distinct Stab Wounds."

"Et tu, Brute?"

- lit. "You too, Brutus?" - from Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, Act 3 Scene 1. The phrase is spoken by the Roman dictator Julius Caesar during his assassination to his friend Marcus Junius Brutus when Caesar realizes Brutus is also one of the assassins.