And yes Martha took the day. I heard Judge Napolitano (sp?) say that one of the jurors that was interviewed after Martha was convicted had given Martha and her defense team a good reason for appeal in stating that they (some of the members of the jury) thought that Martha was making a mockery of the jury by not testifying. According to Napolitano it was in the jury instructions that they could not consider in any way if Martha did not take the stand.
When that juror appeared before the media cameras directly after court was adjourned I got negative vibes about his boastful in what seemed to be a 5 minute question and answer interview.
This case represents a scary precedent because the jurors have the opportunity to be "celebrities" for 15 minutes after the upcoming trials.
The United States Court of Appeals will rarely -- and I mean very, very rarely -- overturn a jury verdict based upon what some jurors may have said or thought during deliberations even if contrary to the judge's instructions. When a juror during deliberations strays from the judge's instructions the other jurors are supposed to bring him back into line and if she refuses, then the other jurors are supposed to report the problem to the court before reaching a verdict. The judge will then reinstruct the jury as a whole and if the offending juror continues to ignor the instructions, then the judge will remove that juror from the panel. Once a verdict is reached, however, the deliberative process is generally off limits on appeal. The exception is when the jury as a whole answers "special interrogatories" submitted by the attorneys through the court and those answers show a gross misunderstanding of the law and the charge as applied to the facts of the case. But the post-trial statements of one or two jurors are not going to carry any weight on appeal.