While commenting on another post I googled, "What is the longest time a jury has stayed on a case?" What I found was this article. The length of this trial was over four years. It started with 18 jurors and by the time of the article had 14 with alternates. The jurors made friends and jokes about the length, including making a cake for each year's anniversary. I had to wonder how psychology plays a role in this situation. For example, is it prudent to continue making the jurors listen everyday to an argument that they have heard over four years?
Well, it would be difficult bringing another person into the jury which does not know the full story. Yet, I would assume that the jurors would reach their wits end at some point. Can anyone but the plaintiffs be taking this case seriously after all of this time? I think the jurors who have stayed the full four years must enjoy being a juror, realize that they can sit pretty on money made without actually having to go to 'work' (though this case has become their job) or these people just have nothing better to do. It would be very interesting to interview each of the jurors and study their psychological tendencies.
It seems unlikely that they are having a "fair" trial at this point. Perhaps I just don't understand the legal system enough by I can't imagine how it's possible to spend so much time on a case. If the juror's get to the point where they are joking about how long the trial has taken it seems that at least on some level they have mentally checked out, or are not taking the case seriously any more. This has to have a MASSIVE impact on juror decision making. It would be interesting to see how long they deliberate for after the case closed...