So at about 3:00 on Wednesday afternoon, we began deliberations. After discussing our initial impressions a little bit, we did an anonymous vote to see which side everyone came down on. Results: 5 Guilty, 6 Not Guilty, 1 Undecided but leaning Not Guilty. There were a few of us (including me) who were very staunchly Not Guilty, and there were a few who very firmly believed the was Guilty. Then there were several people who were very much on the fence.
Now, being a very strong introvert, you might think I had very little to say during deliberations. Wrong. I was probably one of the most outspoken people on the jury. I guess it’s that INFJ passion for our causes that came out in me—I felt very strongly that the prosecution’s evidence was not strong enough to convict, and I advocated passionately to that affect.
I thought about typology a lot during the deliberation process, actually. The evidence that the prosecution submitted as proof of his guilt was nearly all circumstantial. We were told that in the eyes of the law, circumstantial evidence does not hold less weight than direct evidence, but as circumstantial evidence is, by definition (“is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact”), open to interpretation, we had to really rely on our own judgment as to whether we believed the circumstantial evidence “proved” the prosecution’s case. Also, we got stuck on points 2 and 4 from the list above (2- DH knew that DJ committed the felony, 4- DH performed this action with the intention of helping DJ evade arrest). Establishing guilt for both of these items required us to try to ascertain the defendant’s state of mind at the time of his alleged crime, which of course is quite difficult and requires interpretation and intuition as well.