The Jury Speak Out
One other enormous difference between the legal system in this country and that of the United States is that of what jurors can and cannot do. The recent Phil Spector trial has made that very clear.
In this country what goes on in the jury room towards a verdict is supposed to stay completely secret. As shrouded in mystery as a priest's confessional or a cardinal's conclave. No one is supposed to know what went on other than the result all those matters which inevitably emerge from the court room. Thus if the jury ask a question it is quite plain that that is something they are considering. If the jury are unable to reach a verdict that will be known. Likewise whether they have reached a unanimous or majority verdict. However who said what or who thought what remains secret.
That of course means that proper analysis of how juries function is problematical. There have been very few studies, each based on peculiar circumstances permitting them to operate. In general a widespread consideration is difficult.
In the United States the position is completely different. Jurors actively speak out. There seems to be no detail which the media are not ready willing and able to absorb and then transmit the general public. Thus you have jurors talking specifically about the deliberations, what went on, what their personal views of the evidence were and why they voted as they did.
A classic illustration came in the Phil Spector trial itself. Jurors have been speaking out on television both about their own views and about the apparently heated deliberations, including why the jurors could not agree. This has included various jurors speaking out about the reasons given for their stance by the two jurors who were voting not guilty.
From the perspective of this country, this is about as far away from what would be allowed here as it is possible to imagine. Not only is it a question of the jury speaking out. It is the idea of jurors speaking out when there is the likelihood (or more specifically near certainty) of a retrial taking place. In a case such as this, which because of its profile will be played out coast-to-coast on the TV networks and other media, it is difficult to see that there will be anyone who does not know what the views of the first jury were and why, and why they failed to reach agreement. The chance seems remote of any new jury commencing consideration of this case without knowing all the ins and outs of what went on the first time. Although it is fair to say that the United States has a much more developed jury selection system which can involve questioning jurors about what they know, preconceptions etc. The options to challenge jurors are much more limited in this country. Again it is perhaps a policy decision as to what is appropriate. The more you can "choose" your jurors, the less representative juries might become. In this country, even were commentary from the jury room allowed, it is inconceivable that it would be allowed when there might be a retrial.
It is interesting that systems with such common roots have taken such divergent paths. As regards publicity from the jury room, they are about as far apart as it is possible to get.