I am a strong supporter of the death penalty too, and I would have to really not have reasonable doubt to convict someone of charges if it was on the table. The theory is reasonable doubt should be the same for minor punishment as for death- but that is against human nature. If I mess up and somebody serves 6 months- not the same as messing up and being responsible for someone getting the death penalty that doesn’t deserve it. Supposedly the first jury vote was 6-6 not sure on what charge- that is why there should have been some real deliberation. I don’t think the jury is supposed to discuss the trial during the trial- but they may have. There was a story on Friday that claimed they may have discussed the case with each other during the trial which is against the law/rules...not sure what happens to the jurors if that is true.
I don’t see how the jury is not supposed to discuss the case, especially a sequestered jury. There they are basically locked up with each other with the news made available to them heavily censored, what exactly do they have available to discuss?