Isn't it interesting that the jury has now been deliberating for a whole week in the Robert Blake case? I have no idea whether they'll deadlock or vote to convict or what. But all the commentators covering this trial thought it was one of those cases where the jury would be unanimous for conviction on the first ballot and would only stay out for a token interval to make it seem like they'd really, really considered every nuance of the case. I didn't follow all the details but it seems to me that a week is more than enough time to really, really consider every nuance.
As I understand it, they have to decide on one count of murder with a special circumstance of lying in wait, and two counts of solicitation of murder. Several different men testified that Blake talked to them about killing his wife so I'm guessing the jurors aren't re-enacting Twelve Angry Men over the solicitation charges. But there does not seem to have been any forensic evidence — i.e., no identifiable prints on the murder weapon — that the actor actually pulled the trigger. The jury requested a read-back of testimony from the owner of Vitello's Restaurant about how the Blakes were acting just before the shooting. So one might assume that the jurors are debating just what happened that night, which goes to the first count…and maybe on that, one or more isn't convinced beyond that reasonable doubt.
But maybe not. Perhaps it's just that the jurors are taking their mission very seriously and are reviewing every syllable of every bit of the testimony several times over. That would not be a bad thing, even if they eventually vote Guilty, right down the line. It would also not be a bad thing if this triggered a moment of reflection in everyone who decided early-on that Blake was guilty as a body could be. Maybe it's not quite as open-'n'-shut as a lot of people figured.
Then again, maybe one of the jurors brought in a deck of cards and they've got a Bridge Tournament going. You never know.