RedOctober3829 said:
How long do you guys think deliberations will take?
My non-quantified thoughts.
Estimates are a total crapshoot. I think the following is safe to say though. Usually the jury will want to review some or all of the evidence. There's a ton of it here. If the jury all agrees as to a verdict from the get go (unlikely), they're probably talk a bit before returning a verdict. I'm sure they want to go home, but here's the opportunity to say out loud whatever they've been privately thinking for the past few months. Also, jurors are often conscious that an immediate verdict might look unseemly. (I've twice had juries tell me that they waited because they didn't want to hurt the prosecutor's feelings by returning a NG verdict right away.)
Given all this, I'd expect a couple of hours (or end of day verdict) at the absolute earliest. No need to rush, but no need to come back for a second day.
That might not apply here since the jury retired late in the day. So, anytime the second day is possible. (But this assumes juror agreement and a desire to get it done but without rushing.)
If there's a holdout or a split, or a disagreement on any of the charges, they'll come back for a third day of deliberations.
Assuming 9 to 5 days, I'm guessing you'd see more likely see verdicts at 10 (overnight change of heart from lone holdout), pre-post lunch, or just before the end of day. Repeat as necessary. The longer it goes, the more likely you are to get an early AM or late PM verdict, although holdouts/splits can resolve themselves at
any time. It's just that there's usually extra pressure right before the PM break. Someone will loudly complain about having to come back for yet another day.
If there's a holdout or a split, a good indicator besides the length of deliberation is that the jury might ask a question. Everyone assembles in court (sans jury) and the written question is read into the record by the judge. Everyone discusses. The judge then (usually) brings the jury in and sits them and answers the question. (Instead of sending a note back, this guarantees each juror hears the same answer.) Usually judges default to repeating the jury instructions if they can. Sometimes a special instruction is read, but it's rare.
The question can indicate a particular legal fault line or hangup, or ask for something like a re-reading of evidence. So they're good to pay attention to, but there's often little or no opportunity for either side to sway the jury one way or the other. Also, just repeating the relevant jury instruction may not do anything to resolve the split/conflict/holdout's theory.
Often cases resolve the same day as a question, since asking the Court a question is often a way to break a deadlock in the jury room. While the answer may not be helpful in the sense that it gives clear guidance, the question and the act of being re-instructed often does narrow the issues for the jury. They know they're stuck with the evidence and instructions.
***
If the jury is hung, they can indicate this to the judge. Some jurisdictions have a specific "try harder" instruction that the judge can read to the jury in that situation. The judge will also point out that the jury can return on some of the charges and deadlock on others. But if a jury is completely deadlocked, the judge can only send them back into the jury room so many times. Personally, I'm guessing the "try harder" instruction breaks the deadlock in about 25% of the cases. The rest remain hung. There are probably stats out there somewhere on that.
***
There's been some interesting research on the effect of environment on one's predisposition to judge something harshly. Basically crappy surroundings equals a harsher condemnation of something. Pleasant surroundings make us more forgiving. Hence, when appropriate, I become the jury's advocate in the courtroom. I've gotten the court to order the really nice pizza for everyone. (Once the court had both myself and the state pony up for the upgrade in the meal, but it seemed well worth it to me.)