In the UK you're not allowed to talk about what went on in the jury room and given what we're seeing here it strikes me as entirely sensible.

Yes you can argue for transparency, but you're not really getting transparency, you're getting one persons edited highlights, possibly misremember almost certain skewed by personal bias what's been learned since, with none of the subtlety, none of the responses or questions or process that was undertaken to reach those positions.

I've served on a jury in the UK and I have a view on what happened in that room but I'm absolutely certain that other jury members would see it very differently. As a result anything I told you about how the decision was reached would I think be pretty suspect.

If you want transparency then record and document the whole of the jury's deliberations (with all the appeals and arguments that will lead to), but the current situation seems to be a halfway house which no real merit.

I've never heard anything in the US about not being able to talk about jury-room stuff, but I never talk about my experience if someone could link it to the case in question. I just can't see it leading to anything good.

I do, however, talk about it when telling people how positive the experience was, and that it shouldn't be avoided. Before I went, I desperately wanted to avoid it, too, but after going through it, I actually have more confidence in the justice system.

So because he has decided to be more open and transparent than the typical juror, we should all treat him worse than the typical juror? That seems like backward thinking to me.