It was reported yesterday that the jury in the Bill Cosby case was deadlocked but was ordered by the judge to continue to try to reach a verdict.
This was done by reading a standard statement:
Judge Steven O'Neill read a standard statement asking them to try to agree on some or all of the counts.
I have seen judges in the UK do similar things.
What is the justification for this? If a juror has made a decision and you force him to go away and "think again", it seems to me that you're essentially telling him that you want him to change his mind. This is bound to put some pressure on jurors to reach a decision on the basis of keeping the judge happy, rather than on genuine confidence.
In a criminal case, why does a subsequent guilty verdict satisfy the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof, when it is clear that any juror who changed his verdict did in fact have quite significant doubt?