What frustrates me is I know we would have been unanimous on all 6 charges if we were given another 1/2 hour on Tuesday without interruption. But the bailiff came in and told us it was time to go home at 5pm. At that point we were finally humming along because the two jurors in question wanted to go home and didn't really care. That was only reinforced the next morning when the woman explained to the man her reasoning to vote guilty on count 6, but to me she just didn't care that much and wanted to leave as soon as possible in the morning (so changed her vote and hoped he would change his also). But the guy's ego was bruised from the day before, so he dug in as deep as possible and even said he was not budging, have the alternates replace him, redo the trial, he didn't care, etc. And then the woman took back her vote on 6 and two other counts (literally within 5 minutes of saying she was voting guilty with the rest of us on everything and why), and said she wanted to be dismissed also and go home.

@greyeyed123 that is awful. They didn’t take their civic duty seriously. It may be unpleasant, but it deserves the time and thought processes involved. Sorry it was so rough on you.

Will you serve again if called? I would in a heartbeat.

@Tinocca Yes. But I know if I do it again, I'll obsess on strategies to try to deal with such people. (Thinking back, the other 10 of us were actually trying everything we could think of, and I have thought of nothing in addition since. One guy even floated that he was raised never to judge anyone, but as an adult he realized he lived in a society and community where he had to in order for society to function, and it was up to god to judge people's souls, etc., hoping that might budge the guy. But it didn't.)

I was astonished how much the actual experience reminded me of "Twelve Angry Men". I taught the play years ago, but characters and scenes were very similar.

One of the two dumb ones said the defendant was his same age, etc. He also works with children about the age the victim was during one of the crimes, and said as he was working with a child, his principal walked by and the kid shouted that he (the juror) was kidnapping him. So he thought 9 year olds could easily lie, etc. (He said this because I said I was a teacher. I've had similar jokes floated around me dozens if not hundreds of times over my career. I've never had a kid joke that I--or any adult at school--did what the defendant was accused of.)

The only problem was that that scenario was completely and utterly different than the relationships and circumstances surrounding the allegations against the defendant. Moreover, his principal used his reasonable judgment as an adult to see immediately that the kid was joking, there was no evidence of anyone actually being kidnapped, the kid's emotional state screamed "joking" and not "a strange man is kidnapping me", etc.

The other dumb one bounced back and forth (staunchly on one side for the first 4-5 hours, then switched entirely, then switched back on a few charges the next day). I also noticed both of them, talking so fast, would sometimes conclude certain things were true to come to another conclusion, and five seconds later not accept the things that led to the second conclusion. I'm not going to go into specifics of this trial, but it is analogous to saying you can't conclude the murderer committed breaking and entering into the house because the lock wasn't broken in exactly the way the victim said it was (although there was evidence it was broken almost exactly the way they said), but also concluding the murderer committed the murder after breaking in. It was just totally bizarre thinking.

The presiding juror was a very energetic, small woman. She tried very hard to use a gentle approach on the dumb guy to persuade him, but it just wasn't working. I'm not terribly talkative in social interactions, and go straight to the point. My approach wasn't working at all, so after a time I just mostly shut up. At one point the dumb guy started using really bad analogies that were supposed to appeal to me, my profession, etc.

I'm glad we got the chance to put a really bad guy behind bars for a long time. We were not in the court room for the sentencing (we were dismissed after our verdicts), but two of our guilty verdicts were Class A felonies in this state (I learned yesterday after being dismissed and finally being allowed to research). I don't know exactly how the sentencing works--if it was done immediately after we left the courtroom, or at a later date. I've already discovered he has been in prison for two years on other crimes.

@greyeyed123 You did your duty and that is being a good citizen. I was on one jury a long time ago, when I lived in Scotland and was called twice in the forty-five years I’ve lived here in Northern Ireland...first time I had a three month old infant so was exempt, the second I was objected to by the defence team at the selection stage...was told by a barrister friend that it was probably because I was female and looked too well dressed and middle class...apparently we are the least sympathetic jurors!

@Marionville Our jury was very diverse, except by age. I think the oldest was late 40s, early 50s, but ages below that were very diverse.

I think it was less of an agenda, and more the fact that the crime was heinous and disgusting, and voting guilty would have been acknowledging that it happened. (He even cried at one point, but kept saying he had to set aside his feelings and go by the evidence--as if that wasn't what the other 10-11 of us were doing!)

You just described Trumplerites!

@davknight From what I've read recently they are true believers. I mean they really believe in him and enjoy watching what he gets up to.
So yes the cognitive dissonance thing is probably happening? But something else is too. They enjoy the acting out he does. It feeds something in them. (Like "There's our Man!" ).

I bet 20 years from now there'll be a complete explanation of this phenomenon and I'll still be sitting there shaking my head.
How someone can say such appalling things and still be supported by so many? Frightening.

@RavenCT The last couple of decades, such personalities have bubbled to the top of the American consciousness. (Maybe they always did?) As Trump rose in popularity, I kept thinking of television anti-heroes like Tony Soprano, Walter White, Don Draper, etc., where the audience largely identified with them, egregious morality flaws and all. But in falling down a youtube hole last night, it struck me that Simon Cowell from "American Idol" was a polarizing personality also, going all the way back to 2002.

@greyeyed123 Hehe I never could stand him either! lol

I don't mind someone playing a character - but the little reality tv I've watched - I don't want to believe someone is that nasty in real life. Apparently it feeds something in people's psyche though. Maybe the same thing that makes people say "That's my team". Even knowing someone on it did something reprehensible? hmm...

@RavenCT I think the point of the anti-hero is to first identify with them, but as their flaws become worse and worse, to recognize those flaws in yourself and reject them (and the anti-hero).

Instead, I think a lot of people are embracing their flaws, doubling down on them, largely because of perceived injustices that, even when legitimate, don't justify the repugnant blow back.

That's mostly what I did, but whenever he said something completely wrong I couldn't keep my mouth shut. Luckily several others couldn't either, and a few times there was an instant chorus of corrections. I can't imagine ever acting that way. He seemed almost insecure about not knowing much, so was trying to fake it as if to convince himself he knew things he clearly didn't know--which might be easy enough to do if you are only fooling yourself, but it doesn't work with other people in the room.

He did not act that way during jury selection, which might be why he ended up getting chosen. Strangely, many, many people in the jury pool volunteered to answer questions during jury selection, and most of them rambled on incoherently with misunderstandings on just about everything they were asked. At least one raised his hand to answer and rambled on without ever answering the question. A couple simply fell silent and couldn't answer basic questions from the lawyers (they were not picked either).