The basic premise, as I understand it, is that there is nothing illegal about coming to the wrong conclusion as a juror. I have also read that it can be contempt of court to try to convince jurors to intentionally come to a conclusion not based on the law and evidence.
So what would happen if a single juror just remained steadfast that the defendant was innocent despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Can a judge remove that juror if they believe they are not being forthright?
So what would happen if a single juror just remained steadfast that the defendant was innocent despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Can a judge remove that juror if they believe they are not being forthright?