If the jury comes back quickly, does that indicate a likely guilty verdict?

[Elessar Zappa]

N/t

[Maeve]

1. Usually, yes

[Ocelot II]

2. Usually, but not always.

There's so much detail in this case that I wouldn't expect a quick verdict, but you never know.

[Ms. Toad]

10. Agreed.

At a minimum, they will have to walk through the process of voting on 34 counts - applying law they just heard in detail for the first time this morning.

Apparently one witness filled several notebooks during the trial with their notes. Anyone paying that much attention during the trial is likely to want to match evidence to each prong of each crime he is charged with - and will be unlikely to be moved along by folks (if they exist) who want to vote and go home.

[Elessar Zappa]

12. So a quick verdict does seem unlikely.

Which could be a good thing as it means this jury is taking their duties seriously.

[DET]

30. From what I heard...

…the diligent note taking juror was one of the lawyers (#3 or #7, I believe). Not too surprising. I’m concerned about juror #2 - the stock market guy who follows Truth Social for his news.

[Shermann]

3. There's a third possibility here which is guilty on only some of the charges. nt

[spooky3]

29. That's what I believe will happen. Nt

[spooky3]

35. I'm happy to be wrong!!!!! Nt

[Tommy Carcetti]

4. Not necessarily

I remember in the OJ Simpson case, the jury deliberated for only about 4 hours before issuing an acquittal.

And in this case, which is document extensive and has 30+ counts, it might take a while, even if there is a general consensus on guilt.

[Prairie Gates]

15. They had a unanimous NOT GUILT vote in 30 minutes

They spent the other few hours just listening to each others reasons.

[jimfields33]

22. They had the glove presentation

As soon as that occurred, the trial was over. I can see why the verdict was quick.

[sdfernando]

5. Yes, a quick verdict is usually not good for the defense...unless

the prosecution's case is extremely weak. We don't have that situation here. But with 34 counts, I doubt we will get a quick verdict.

[SheilaAnn]

6. I'm concerned about the possibility of that one trumper on the jury I read about this a.m. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. In this case, almost certainly

Essentially no court observer who is commenting on this trial thinks that a verdict of not guilty is possible. the conventional wisdom options are either guilty on one or more charges or a hung jury on one or more charges. Even if they are wrong about that, the odds that the whole jury would very quickly agree on a not guilty verdict is extremely remote. I can't imagine that they would come back saying that they are hopelessly deadlocked during the first day of deliberations, that takes a little time to conclude. So by process of elimination, a fast verdict in this case would almost certainly be a guilty verdict on at least some counts.

[LeftInTX]

9. I agree.

[Elessar Zappa]

11. Makes sense, thanks.

[Ms. Toad]

14. Trump is expecting a guilty verdict -

His comment outside the courtroom: - after listening to Justice Merchan’s instructions to the jury, he believes “Mother Teresa could not beat the charges.”

Which shows just how little he knows about the court system, since the issue is what you did, not who you are. Somehow, I don't believe Mother Teresa ever had sex with a porn star, then paid her to keep quiet about it in order to be elected President.

Of course, he could also be setting up unrealistic expectations, so he can brag about what a superstar he is if the verdict is not guilty.

[Mad_Machine76]

26. Mother Teresa wasn't exactly a Saint

But she obviously didn’t do the stuff Trump did.

[jcgoldie]

27. mostly the latter

Trump's comments have consistently been about deflection... blaming it all on a radical democratic jury and (somehow) Joe Biden... and deflecting from any personal responsibility for anything... he's just a victim and he's doing it for us!

[LeonidPlanck]

8. A quick verdict simply means unanimity

But given the weight of being a juror tasked with convicting the former US President I’m sure at least one of them is thinking about the potential personal consequences if he’s re-elected. I’m not sure if it’ll be quick and if it is I’m not sure it won’t be either hung or an acquittal.

[getagrip_already]

16. It wont be quick and hung....

They will keep working if it's hung. They will get an Allen charge and get sent back.

The judge will keep them working if they are hung.

[LeonidPlanck]

25. I really appreciate that you made me

Look-up what an Allan Charge is: it’s a judicial command to a charged jury to do their work.

I knew this a few years ago. It basically means “I’ve convened you here today to draw a reasonable conclusion, if you can’t in full agreement reach a reasonable conclusion, you’re going back home to discuss it until you can.

It’s basically the premise of 12 angry men
A great movie!

[Prairie Gates]

13. Ask OJ

[NanaCat]

34. Four hours was all it took to declare him not guilty

[Silent Type]

17. Even if initial vote is Guilty, they'll take a day or two to look like they deliberated. In meantime, some jurors

are probably looking for an agent.

[global1]

18. If A Guilty Verdict Is Rendered And I Was A Member Of The Jury.......

I sure as hell wouldn't be looking for an agent. I would want to remain as anonymous as possible and drop out of the line of fire of the MSM.

Those sick MAGA's that have a penchant for violence - will be looking to seek revenge on the jury that convicted their messiah.

I know that it is a historical occasion to convict a former president. However, I wouldn't want to go down in history as a juror that took part in this trial.

I don't think that any of these jurors will ever find peace of mind again. They'll be hounded and hunted.

Keep a low profile is the right thing to do.

[NH Ethylene]

31. That's why I'm afraid that fear will cause some to vote 'not guilty'.

[spooky3]

36. None of the E. Jean Carroll jurors (two trials) have spoken to media.

Nicolle said media have been begging them to come forward.

[emulatorloo]

20. An agent? Or a bodyguard to protect them from MAGA psychopaths?

[Jose Garcia]

19. The jury in the OJ Simpson criminal trial deliberated for less than 4 hours

[PeaceWave]

21. All it takes is one stealth MAGA juror...

For all we know, there's one clown in the jury room who is only now showing his or her true colors.

[Torchlight]

23. Difficult to imagine one juror holding the line for all 34 counts.

Even should that juror be a member in good standing trump's faithful flock, math says 'highly improbable.'

[ProfessorGAC]

24. As A Datapoint...

...I was on a jury in '20. Felony domestic battery.
After 1¾ days of presentation, we deliberated for 14 minutes. As foreperson I took the first vote.
12 Not Guilties. Contact the bailiff!
We were back in the courtroom 25 minutes after we left it to deliberate.
I'll let the experts opine on what is typical, but we took no time to decide the prosecution didn't prove anything to us.

[elleng]

28. No, and looks like it won't be 'quick,' as they're paying attention to DETAILS,

as they should.

[live love laugh]

32. If they come back quickly it shouldn't take long to find out instead of speculating.

[NanaCat]

33. No.

The only thing that has meaning is the verdict, and the length of time spent on deliberations and a particular verdict don't have a bearing on one another.

After all, jurors declared OJ not guilty after 4 hours of deliberation. Meanwhile, it took a jury 7 days to declare Scott Peterson guilty, and 11 days to rule the same for Gotti.

Lesson: Every trial is its own unique animal, so it does no good to worry about how long it takes a jury to reach a verdict. Some cases are more complicated or nuanced than others. That's just how it is.

The verdict takes however long it takes. That's the only thing that's guaranteed.