I've been lurking on this and the "smokey backroom" thread today, but I want to comment on this. I recently served on a jury for a semi-noteworthy murder trial in NYC, we found the defendant guilty, but myself and at least one other juror cried after the verdict was read. I understand that some of the juries in this case cried as well, and several posters have suggested that the jurors must have felt compelled to convict an innocent man. I don't know exactly what they were thinking, but in my case, I cried because the magnitude of the situation was overwhelming -- a woman was stabbed to death, her estranged boyfriend did it, and they had a three-year-old child who would live her life with one parent dead, and the other parent in prison. I had no doubts whatsoever as to the murderer's guilt, and after hearing about the evidence we didn't get to hear in trial, I felt even better about my vote.
And one other thing -- I've often heard it said that if the jury looks right at the defendant before delivering the verdict, they think he's innocent, and if they look away, they're going to vote him guilty. I looked straight at the defendant the whole time the verdict was being read, as I thought he might rush security and try to make a run for it!
Thank you for your post. I, too, served on a jury years ago. Two defendents, second degree murder. We found them guilty. Several of the women on the jury, including myself, cried after the verdict, although not until we returned to the jury room.
I, too, saw the posts saying jurors would not cry if they were sure of their verdict. WRONG. We were positive our verdict was correct. But as you say, the sense of responsibility and the magnitude of the situation is enormous. It is something jurors do not take lightly.
For the same reason I have posted several times that I am very confident that the jurors are following the judges orders regarding discussing the trial and are also avoiding media coverage to the best of their ability.