Their continued deliberation suggests that there is a deadlock. Sometimes that happens because jurors have good-faith but unbridgeable disagreements about how to construe the evidence, in accordance with the applicable law. Sometimes, though, a deadlock results from a refusal on the part of one or more jurors to deliberate because of some concern that is unrelated to the facts and law of the case.

Viewers of Fox News’s trial coverage have heard me raise alarms about outside pressures on the jury.

Recall that the jury in the Derek Chauvin trial for killing George Floyd was subjected to egregious extrajudicial influences. But remember, too, that the trial occurred during a time of tight COVID restrictions. There were not many in attendance to speak of, just court personnel, lawyers, witnesses, and the defendant — the minimum necessary for the trial to take place, with public accountability assured by television coverage.

Passions are not quite at George Floyd–level intensity in the Rittenhouse case. Yet, the jurors have not only been subjected to the same types of malign outside influences, including asinine commentary by the White House — President Biden having labeled the defendant a “white supremacist,” a suggestion his spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, sought to . . . er . . . soften this week by portraying him as a “vigilante.” There has been the added element of spectators in the courtroom, gawking at the jurors. Grosskreutz, for example, acknowledged in his testimony that some of his comrades were scattered about the courtroom in a show of solidarity. People are staring at the jury up close. Television cameras are present as well, and though purportedly anonymous, the jurors must worry that their faces could be broadcast for all to see.