You remember "12 Angry Men," in which one juror with doubts persuaded all 11 other jury members to switch their votes to innocent. This is the way such things more often happen in real life:
Jurors in the Chandra Levy murder trial could have rendered a verdict as early as Friday, after just two days of deliberations. In fact, all but one of the jurors were convinced that Ingmar Guandique had accidentally killed the young government intern during a robbery.
But one juror wasn't sure, according to Sharae Bacon, one of the jurors who spoke about the deliberations after the verdict was delivered. She declined to identify the juror but said the juror had not taken notes during the more than two weeks of the trial and wasn't convinced there was any proof that Guandique had tried to rob Levy.
"We had to share our notes [with the juror]. It was very frustrating. We said, 'Just think about it over the weekend and let us know what you think on Monday,' " Bacon said. By Monday morning, the holdout had reviewed the other jurors' notes and agreed with the majority, she said.
Who among us can't relate to that? Work goes smoothly because we all know our roles and do the jobs expected of us. But then one person comes along who (metaphorically) refuses to do his homework, and that means a lot of extra work for everybody else.
