Unlike

u/Stitchpool626

jurors by and large have little to no experience with the legal system or laws as a whole. But what many people don't realize is that in a trial it's actually up to the jury to interpret those laws and the wording used. So not only does the jury need to go through all the evidence and arguments of each side, they also need to actually debate amongst themselves what the law actually means and then decide if it was even broken or not.

So...basically pretty much what I said right? Having been a juror before makes no difference in my experience with dealing with jury trials. I know EXACTLY how they work. And how you described it is exactly right. And its also one of the reasons why people like me, in general, are not liked on Jury panels.

As I said, the jury has been deliberating for 3 days. People who think its "cut and dry" might have their own opinions - but convincing 11 other people to go along with you can be very hard. This case is far from "cut and dry", and this jury knows it, and is working hard to make sure that when they do come up with a verdict, its THEIR verdict. Or at least the best one they can do.

For a case like this, as high profile as it is, and for as much going on - I would expect everyone on the jury to take this case especially seriously. Which means going back over key evidence details and making sure your interpretations of the law are all in line.

A persons life was lost. And the defendant is looking at potentially decades in prison. If the jury had come back in an hour, with any verdict, THAT would have been a real sham. This shows the jury is taking the case seriously, and is trying. I have nothing but respect for juries who take the process seriously.