Each additional minute the jury is out damages their potential contribution to police reform.

[Towlie]

Assuming that the jury will reach a guilty verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial, it'll be better if they reach it sooner rather than later.

As the jury prolongs its deliberation, each additional minute will be interpreted as additional difficulty in convicting a police officer after what was virtually the most compelling prosecution one could imagine. This could have a deleterious effect on the attitude that corrupt police officers across the nation have concerning their apparently James Bond-like "license to kill". As time drags on they'll be increasingly thinking "Don't worry! Look how hard it was to convict Chauvin."

Of course a failure to convict would be devastating, but even if the jury ultimately finds Derek Chauvin guilty they need to quickly recognize a no-brainer and avoid dragging this out. Each additional minute is reason for additional pessimism.

[TwilightZone]

1. Disagree.

There is a ton of information in this trial that they will need to review and discuss, including vast amounts of testimony and data from medical experts. A quick verdict could be seen by some as not taking their responsibilities seriously.

They also have three separate charges to consider.

A long or short deliberation process is ultimately meaningless. The only thing anyone will remember is the verdict on each of the charges.

[beaglelover]

14. You are 100% correct!

[Treefrog]

15. This.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

2. Their task is only to decide on the charges before them. It's not their job to fit this into

a policy discussion.

[BGBD]

5. Exactly

Juries aren't meant to think big picture. Their assignment is narrow to this case, not the larger social implications.

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

3. Probably go at least a week

My guess

[Effete Snob]

4. Nonsense

These are ordinary people who have been tasked with an important and detailed job they've never done before.

Each minute shows that they are taking their responsibility seriously.

[Happy Hoosier]

6. There's a curve, I think.

The jury has to review the evidence and compare the evidence to each count.

That takes a while.

But if it goes more than a day or so, it indicates hold-outs.

Personally, I think this jury will hang on at least a couple counts, because badge-licking racists.

[Treefrog]

16. So you're calling people you have ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of "badge licking racists."

Ever heard of prejudice? Because that statement is a perfect example of pre-judging.

[Happy Hoosier]

28. I was not being specific to THIS jury....

But rather recognizing that it is a phenomenon that exists in this country. There are some who would NEVER convict a cop, and I think you know it.

I am delighted this jury with not tainted by their sort.

[GulfCoast66]

24. Badge licking racists? That did not age well.

[Happy Hoosier]

29. I am delighted that there were none of this jury.

I am more pleased than I can express.

But I think you know there are people out there who attempt to nullify any jury trying to convict a cop. Happily, not on this one.

[MineralMan]

7. No. Not at all.

Anyone who expects a quick verdict in this case doesn't understand how jury deliberations work.

This case will take some time in the jury room. There are three possible charges to decide. There is going to be considerable discussion about all three. Not everyone will make a decision immediately, and there will probably even be serious arguments among the juror.

In the end, I think there will be a guilty verdict, but I cannot predict on which charge.

[Raven]

8. Nope. If they are doing their job, they will take a day to review the medical

testimony and another day to review the video tapes and some of the eye witness testimony. Thursday they will take some straw votes and, if there are hold outs, they will spend the day trying to avoid a hung jury. They may come back on Friday, before the weekend.

[Ms. Toad]

19. Friday sure got here quickly! n/t

[Raven]

22. Boy, was I wrong! Happily, very wrong!

[Ms. Toad]

23. I was thinking maybe tomorrow -

so I was wrong, too.

[MisterNiceKitty]

9. Of course you know these jurors didn't ask to be in this situation

[LanternWaste]

18. Of course you know no one is arguing, or even implying otherwise

[MisterNiceKitty]

20. From the OP:

"Each additional minute the jury is out damages their potential contribution to police reform"

[LanternWaste]

31. And I'm still wondering who argued 'these jurors asked to be in this situation'

Which was explicit n your statement.

[USALiberal]

10. Pure BS! Nt

[StarfishSaver]

11. Not true

This is a complicated case with lots of evidence that the jury needs to go through. A quick verdict would actually undermine the cause because it would appear that the jury did not thoughtfully consider all of the evidence but instead, rushed to judgment.

I'm fine with then taking their time. It will mean that if they do convict, it is solid.

And they've been deliberating less than a day - in fact, only a few hours. This is not even close to being "dragged out."

[Thunderbeast]

12. The importance of jury service is under-reported

Popular culture views jury service as a terrible nuisance...to be avoided at all costs. It IS an uncomfortable obligation that is well outside the common experience of most of us.

Jury duty is a sacred obligation to justice. The decisions about criminal and civil justice are empowered to random, ordinary citizens. Their authority to impart the will and authority of the justice system is absolute. An unfair law can be effectively nullified by a jury's decision.

A flaw in our current system is the under-representation of working people and minorities on juries. Without a method to provide child care, at-home caregivers are often excused. Jury pools are dominated by retired people that carry no obligation to jobs. Employers routinely write excuse requests.

In order to have juries of our peers, the obligation to jury service must be revered, and compensation must be adequate to allow broader participation.

[MineralMan]

13. When someone complains to me about jury duty,

I ask them, "What if you were on trial for something or in a civil suit? Wouldn't you want intelligent jurors listening to you?"

Jury duty is an important function in our judicial system. We should consider it an honor to serve on a jury. Any of us might face a jury someday.

[StarfishSaver]

21. I have little patience for people who complain about and try to avoid jury duty

Usually these are the same people who bitch and moan about how unfair and "rigged" the system is. But when offered an opportunity to help make the system fairer, they claim to be too busy.

[MineralMan]

25. Exactly.

[WarGamer]

17. there is a process to be done

A fast verdict indicates taking the task unseriously.

[MineralMan]

27. Nope. They followed the process.

That's why it took a day and a half. They heard all the evidence in court. They saw the video of Chauvin killing George Floyd. They voted unanimously to convict. That is the process. Ever been on a jury?

[WarGamer]

30. Like I said...

coming back in a couple hours is rushed.

This jury did a great job.

(you DO know that was posted PRE-ANNOUNCEMENT, right?)

[WhiskeyGrinder]

26. Okay, so are people still going to push for reform? Or are they going to take this as a sign that

the system somehow works?