In your case, if you have The OJ Jury, nothing said or proven will matter, anyway.
Doncha' just wonder what's become of the obscene members of that jury? They are now known, worldwide, to be what they are. I wonder if they consider their individual participations to be "Badges of Honor."
By "psychological warfare" I meant that most everyone has been raised on the maxim that "One is innocent until proven guilty" and that we should not jump to conclusions without evidence of wrongdoing. Generally we as individuals do not want to sit in judgment of others (at least in an official capacity, such as juror)and are predisposed not to want to convict someone.
Now juries are, for the most part, normal people who understand that the Government must prove all elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. However, jurors also do not want criminals let out of court to commit further crimes. Whenever the prosecution does something that allows the jury to pass its "guilt" of letting a guilty person off, it may very well do so, feeling comfortable that "the government did not prove its case". The prosecution could have had poor evidence or may have done something that the juries felt was "unfair", etc.
OJ's case falls into this category what with the "N" word controversy, the poorly handled evidence, the non-fitting glove, etc. There were many things done in the case that allowed the jury to pass the "guilt" they felt as individuals for letting someone they may have felt in their hearts was guilty of murder on to the prosecution because of the way the case was presented. In "Outrage" by Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor of Charlie Manson, he argues that a conviction could have been reached (even with the jury that was picked) had the prosecution put on even a "C" performance. He grades the prosecution as "F" IIRC.
My guess is that the people on the jury sleep well at night. They have comfortably "passed" any responsibility they may have otherwise felt for letting a killer go, by placing the "blame", if any, on the government.