There is a fascinating, long article in the Sunday New York Times on how the jury in the trial of the alleged Al Qaeda members and associates of Osama bin Laden charged with committing the American Embassy bombings in 1998 in East Africa deadlocked on the death penalty decision for both men for whom the government had sought execution.

It may be the most detailed recounting of a jury deliberation process in a death case we've seen. And it is one filled with numerous questionable actions by the jurors. One looked up a complex legal issue on the internet. Two discussed the death penalty with their pastors during the trial. Another was purportedly anti-death penalty from the start but somehow made it through the jury selection process.

The six month long trial took place in Manhattan in 2001, with the deliberations ending just two months before September 11. The jurors deadlocked twice on the death penalty issue, with a final vote of 9 to 3 for death. In federal criminal trials, death sentences must be unanimous. Also, death penalty opponents are not allowed to serve on capital juries--jurors are questioned in detail about their death penalty views during jury selection, a process referred to as "death qualifying the jury"-- and only those who are at least open to the possibility of voting for a death sentence are allowed to serve.

Here's a quote from the article:

Interviews with the jurors now show that two of them, concerned about the religious implications of voting for execution, violated the judge's directive by consulting their local pastors during deliberations. Another juror confused the court during jury selection about his willingness to impose a death sentence, and from the early stages of the trial had ruled it out. In the end, his adamant refusal to consider death helped lead to the deadlocks on execution.

Yet another juror said that he was afraid throughout the trial of possible retaliation by Islamic terrorists, and that he, as the lone Jew on the panel, felt especially vulnerable. "Maybe I'm overly fearful," the juror said of his experience, "but these are crazy times we live in." The juror was one of three to vote against the death penalty in both instances.

The details of the jury's deliberations are the result of extensive interviews done over the last year with 9 of the 12 anonymous jurors. All nine spoke on the condition that their anonymity be preserved, and some provided copies of notes they wrote at home.

The revelations about the jury's actions, previously known only among the 12 men and women themselves, come at a moment of intense debate about whether trials in civilian courts are appropriate for deciding the fates of accused terrorists. The Bush administration has argued that military tribunals are a better way to try some international terrorists and to more successfully win death penalties. One administration concern involves a problem that appears to have surfaced in the bombings trial: in terror cases, jurors might feel vulnerable to reprisal, and such fears could influence their actions.

But there is also broader interest in the performance of death penalty juries — the nature of the discussion, the role of personal belief — in part because there have been so many examples of men and women being wrongly convicted, including some who were facing execution. Recently, a judge in Houston said he would allow public television to film deliberations in a death penalty case.

In interviews, some lawyers for the convicted men, while grateful that the lives of their clients were finally spared, said they were troubled to learn that jurors had sought outside advice. All four men are appealing their convictions, but whether the disclosures about the jury's conduct could play a role in those appeals is unclear, the lawyers said. (Both jurors who sought spiritual guidance voted for death.)

....It is impossible to say how unusual the conduct of the bombings jury was. Most accounts of jury deliberations remain secret, or at least untold. And accounts of some juries, often told by jurors themselves, have shown that the process of reaching verdicts can be imperfect, even disturbing.

There's so much more, often told in the voice of the jurors. Really a good read, no matter which side of the death penalty aisle you might be on.