Can a juror&#39;s vote count as the opposite of their actual vote if they explicitly state they vote against their opinion?
<p>Suppose there is a hypothetical situation in which a person on a jury becomes infatuated with a criminal defendant.  Suppose they make this explicitly clear during jury deliberations.  For example, let's say it's a male juror and he says &quot;she is too hot to go to jail even though she is clearly guilty, so I am voting 'not guilty.'&quot;</p>
<p>Let's say the same juror persistently keeps voting &quot;no&quot; when the jury tries to decide if they should convict or not.  Is there a process for the juror's opinion, that &quot;she is clearly guilty,&quot; to be counted as the opinion they expressed, instead of their vote?</p>
<p>I've never served on a jury, so I don't know.  Maybe it's more appropriate to ask if there is even a vote?  Or do the jurors only need to express their opinion (of guilt/innocence) during the deliberations?</p>

<p>When the required number of jurors vote &quot;yes&quot; (or &quot;no&quot;, or whatever the question is), then the jury has reached a verdict. There is no provision whereby the presiding juror can re-interpret &quot;yes&quot; as &quot;no&quot;. In the case you describe, if a unanimous verdict is required that despite a reasonable inference that the last juror believes the defendant to be guilty, he has voted not guilty so the jury has not reached a verdict.</p>
<p>In case the guy in charge decides &quot;In this case no means yes&quot;, thus falsely presents a supposed unanimous verdict, there is still an option for juror polling, in which case the not-guilty juror gets a chance to affirm his not guilty vote; though one of the parties has to request jury polling. If during polling the juror's response is not a clear &quot;yes&quot;, then it could be more complicated.</p>

united-states jury criminal-procedure process jury-nullification