What is the problem with speedy verdicts? The rules typically given to jurors spell out the exact problem. Jurors are instructed at the beginning of U.S. trials that they are only supposed to take in the evidence and withhold judgment until the full and complete case has been presented to them. Speedy verdicts prove that this is all just a sham. There is absolutely no way that a jury that returns a quick verdict has adequately considered the case presented to them. They obviously came to a conclusion before deliberations began. So why don’t judges question whether juries followed the explicit instructions they were given? Expediency.
The American “Justice” system is patently cruel and unfair to those without the resources to navigate it. It can take months and years for a case to work its way to an actual trial. When it is time to railroad a defendant, however, the system chooses to go full speed ahead and hide its head in the sand when it comes to the obvious problems with a fast verdict. Waiting on a long deliberation slows things down, so when a jury obviously ignores the rules and comes to a quick decision, the “Justice” system makes a choice to ignore it.
