Whats crazy is when the jurors did their first vote it was 2 undecided, 3 guilty and 7 for not guilty.
How do you get 7 people to switch their votes from not guilty to guilty on the lack of evidence that was provided?
He's guilty for murder but not for mutilating a body? Looks like the jury was trying to compromise on their verdicts to maybe help Avery get a new trial down the road maybe?
Juries will settle on a verdict all the time.
Depending on the judge, lots of judges don't let a jury hang, often time a judge will keep a jury at it for weeks or longer, depending on the length of the trial and the reports from the jury and the judges general theory on juries.
Had a 1st degree murder trial come back as murder in the second degree, when we argued for not guilty, State argued for guilty of first degree murder, no argument ever put forward for murder in the second degree, by either side...
However absent some showing of abuse of discretion or a short list, jury verdicts wont and cannot be questioned. It is basically could they possibly find a rational basis for this verdict...
In our case yes, so no appeal, even if it was the simple fact our two hold outs for not guilty, got sick and tired of arguing with the 10 guilty votes, so they settled on 2nd...
As to why most judges do not like a hung jury, it is not really fair to the Defendant or the State...
I would rather have a verdict every day of the week regardless of my side then re-try the same case against the same opposing counsel.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2014/07/24/seth-techel-trial-conviction/13107245/
That was a local murder tried 3 times before a guilty verdict. At some point when two previous juries cannot decide on a verdict it makes you wounder if proof beyond a reasonable doubt can ever be reached unless you get really really really unlucky or lucky with the jury pool.
As to the human side of the jury, imagine if you where locked in a room after hearing evidence from two lawyers about the legacy of Bo Pelini, and you could not leave until you all agreed upon one and only one legacy lets say a grade, of Bo Pelini, and on one side you had some very strong Bo-Lievers and on the other had some very anti bozo pelini people, and some people who are fence riders, at a certain point people break down and start refusing to talk to each other etc... I have heard shouting in jury rooms before, which result in me leaving the area, it is improper to over hear anything in a jury room.
As to helping him get a new trial kinda doubt it, most jurors know that there verdicts cannot be questioned etc, the judge usually instructs them as such. Granted you can have a judge that has massive courage grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, basically if the jury based there conclusion upon something that is not based upon any evidence or rational jury could find, however those are rarely granted as those are usually taken care of by motion for directed verdict.
If you where to ask me, which I doubt any of you would, that result was most likely a compromise for personal feelings to 'give' the defendant something or more accurately to give the people who wanted not guilty or guilty of a lesser crime an olive branch to get a verdict submitted.