What's wrong with starting with a vote? wouldn't that be one way to know where everyone stands and where to focus?
(I've never been a jurist)
There's a big difference between a jurist and a juror.
What's wrong with starting with a vote? wouldn't that be one way to know where everyone stands and where to focus?
The only time I've actually sat as a juror we discussed the case first and when it looked like we were heading towards a concensus the foreman asked for a voice vote. We definitely discussed what had been testified, what evidence there was (not much) and what the law was before we voted. But it only took us less than two hours after the end of the trial and a lot of that was waiting for the paperwork before we formally started.
I bet the left will use this 3-3 initial vote as a sign of injustice, while they use the change from 11-1 to 0-12 in Twelve Angry Men is seen as proof of the justice of the jury sstem.