#1
We ended up with 10 agreeing on an amount unanimously which is all we needed. The company in question messed up the investigation into the explosion from the get go, lost a critical piece of evidence, and one of their expert witnesses pretty much lied on the stand and their lawyers fought that evidence being given to us so we wouldn't see the lie.
How I ended up on that jury, I'll never know. I was honest that I don't trust companies to have consumer's best interests in mind and that I've spent most of my adult life working with intellectually disabled children. But we made sure that man and his family will never want for anything ever again.
#2
#3
When I got there, Dad told me to wait, because he needed to go talk to somebody.
Some other dude told me he'd been on the jury with my Dad, and that I should be proud becuase my Dad was selected as the foreman.
I asked how they picked him, and the guy said, "he was the only one of us in a suit, so we knew he was smart.".
Serving on a jury is often seen as a serious civic duty, but understanding why jurors sometimes say or believe baffling things requires looking at how the system is designed and how people think. LaHood Norton Goss explains that the purpose of jury duty is to involve ordinary citizens, not just judges or officials, in applying the law to real-world situations.
Jurors are meant to act as impartial peers who evaluate evidence and testimony, ensuring that decisions are spread across multiple people to reduce bias or abuse. This system relies on citizens’ judgment to bring community values and common sense into the courtroom, which also makes human error, and occasionally absurd statements, inevitable.
#4
#5
Me: "If I said I think you look like you would cheat on your girlfriend, should we put you in jail?"
Him: "I didn't cheat. We weren't like official, you know?"
I didn't even know how to respond to that one. Talk about missing the point and proving it at the same time.
#6
Part of why jurors can sometimes make unusual or illogical comments is tied to the way they process evidence and testimony. Bodiford Law explains that jurors carefully listen to witnesses, compare conflicting accounts, and attempt to determine what actually happened while following the judge’s legal instructions.
In practice, this involves a combination of logical reasoning and human psychology, including emotions, intuition, and personal biases. Jurors assess credibility by examining the consistency of statements, alignment with other evidence, and how confident or nervous a witness appears. They also rely on everyday judgment, such as evaluating whether someone might have a motive to lie or whether an expert’s explanation seems clear and plausible.
#7
#8
#9
Psychological and social dynamics further shape how jurors think and communicate during deliberations. Jury Analyst highlights that confirmation bias leads jurors to favor information that supports their initial impressions while discounting contradictory evidence, and hindsight bias makes events seem more predictable after the fact than they actually were.
Furthermore, groupthink can suppress disagreement when jurors prioritize harmony or quick consensus, and dominant personalities, those who speak confidently or early, can disproportionately steer the discussion. These human tendencies help explain why deliberations sometimes produce statements that are illogical, overconfident, or just downright baffling.
#10
#11
#12
To help reduce confusion, Judicature notes that measures are designed to clarify jurors’ roles, explain relevant laws, and provide a framework for applying legal standards. They highlight that jurors who actively engage with evidence, through note-taking, formulating questions, or other participation, tend to remember details more accurately and distinguish trial information from pre-trial knowledge.
However, even with careful orientation and instructions, jurors may still misinterpret complex legal concepts or allow personal beliefs and biases to affect their reasoning, meaning mistakes and unusual statements remain a natural part of the process.
#13
In both cases, I was generally impressed with how well my fellow jurors handled the responsibility.
That said, in one case, one juror was unwilling to doubt the word of a police officer. It took two days, but the other 11 of us got her to change her mind, and vote for not guilty.
In the second case, a lady would go into a department store with a shopping bag. In the bottom of the shopping bag were a lot of store receipts she had found in waste baskets etc. She would put stolen items in the bag and claim she had bought them.
Of course, the receipts were printed with dates (not the same date she was arrested), and merchandise codes (not for the items in her bags).
Her defense attorney urged us to disregard the hocus-pocus computer codes.
We of the jury practically rolled our eyes in unison.
#14
Guy robbed a liquor store. Caught on video. Confessed on video. Shaved his beard between the confession and the court case.
One juror was convinced the guy on trial and the guy confessing WERE NOT THE SAME PERSON. Was convinced it was a conspiracy. After 2 days of deliberations, he refused to speak to any other jurors
We were a hung jury after 5 days of deliberation.
Even the defense attorneys wanted to speak to us afterward and were like, wait w*f HOW.
#15
The excuses they tried to come up with was mind-boggling, ranging from “we’re not the same race so we can’t be peers!” (Several of us called her a racist for that and made her cry) to “It’s my birthday and it’s bad luck!” or some b******t. A hung jury wasn’t allowed, so it was a torturous two days to make them stop their b******t and agree that yes, he was guilty. Sorry your fee fees were hurt, but too f*****g bad.
From these jaw-dropping jury room moments, it’s clear that not everyone comes to the table, or the deliberation room, equipped with common sense. Some jurors overthink, others completely miss the point, and a few confidently march forward with logic that’s, let’s just say, creative.
Whether it’s a bizarre question, a wildly inaccurate "fact", or a comment that leaves everyone speechless, these moments highlight the painfully absurd, side of civic duty. So, if you’ve ever wondered what it’s like to sit in a jury room, this collection of stories is proof that reality can be far stranger than fiction. Keep reading and laugh a little!
#16
The judge initially really wanted our decision to be unanimous so extended deliberations by many many hours.
Most of those hours were spent molycoddling this one woman who simply couldn't make a decision. Eventually the judge settled for an 11 to 1.
#17
The dumbest thing that was done was very minor. By the time deliberations came, everything had been rehashed so many times that it was utterly clear to everyone involved that the two on trial were not guilty. One of the jurors said "we should stay in here a while, so they know we took this seriously". Haha, nar mate.
We ended up going out for celebratory drinks, running into the defendants and their crew, hearing even more evidence that wasn't allowed to be presented, and having a good laugh at the straws that the prosecution was grasping at.
#18
During deliberations, one juror felt the furniture company didn’t deserve to pay because “I think the company was trying really hard!”.
#19
The "criminal" was quietly smoking on his balcony (at 2am) and one of the neighbors called the cops on him. The police showed up, arrested him (without incident), the DA added a bunch of paraphernalia charges, weapons enhancement, too close to school zone charges, etc. ... they wanted to throw the book at him. Everyone except Mr. Refer Madness was on board for jury nullification. After the second day of deliberation, yes two days thanks to Mr. Refer Madness, we finally got unanimous not guilty votes for all charges. I really wanted to throat punch the f****r.
Bonus: The "criminal" was a veteran using weed to treat his PTSD. This happened in 2004.
#20
