I have two ideas: One is that they were pretty close to their final decision and decided to wait and give their decision to Judge Zagel and let him 'finish what he started'.

Another is that they felt a few days vacation for them (not just Judge Zagel) wouldn't affect their deliberations, so why not take a few days off.

Either way, I don't feel this time off is going to affect jury deliberations adversely.

At this point, after all the weeks of testimony, etc, the jury knows what they have to do and certainly have their individual opinions and lines of reasoning sketched out.

The only "affect" of this delay is that the defense attorneys will use it in their appeals, even though I don't think the delay really affects their clients negatively.

Their clients have already been found guilty of racketeering, which carries prison sentences that can hardly be affected by waiting one more week (at least) to hear about the murder charges. (Attorneys loudly protest everything, don't they?)

And even if the racketeering charges are appealed by the defense attorneys, are these men eligible for parole or will they have to wait in jail for an appeal to be scheduled? If they have to wait in jail, a week does not affect them.

The families of the murder victims are affected by having to wait, but again two points: Not taking these few days off doesn't mean a verdict would have been reached sooner, and, without trying to be heartless, they've already been waiting years for charges to be made, does waiting a few additional days for a ruling change anything?

All in all, since the jury was only deliberating 4 days (Mon-Thurs), and they are to resume this Thursday, I don't see that 3 days off is going to affect their decisions or should call into question the trial proceedings.

I am curious to see how others feel.

In my opinion, the jury should have continued deliberating, reached a verdict, and be done with it. If I were a juror, I would want this over with. It's already cost them nearly three months of their lives, so why drag it out?

I think that since the jury took a week off, all of the defendants should be able to go home for a week and spend it with their family.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander (or however that saying goes)

The defense concern is that standing down for two weeks increases the risk that the jurors may form opinions or have their view of the evidence reshaped from outside sources, such as family members or friends offering their two cents worth.

The issues to be decided during this phase are unique and the deliberations on them must follow the initial deliberations on the RICO counts.

Otherwise, the jury simply would have been instructed to return a verdict on each defendant's culpabaility on the various murders when they returned their first, more general verdict.

Thus, there is no comfort in the notion that "the jury knows what they have to do and certainly have their individual opinions and lines of reasoning sketched out," as the first poster wrote.

They are supposed to deliberate anew as a group; it's a constitutional right.

Who was the Judge who agreed to or was assigned to cover for Judge Zagel?

He or she was presented a touchy issue: do I defer to the jury's wish and thereby minimally involve myself in another judge's case (usually the preferred course), or do I make a substantive ruling at this always delicate stage of the proceedings and order the jury to continue uninterrupted?

STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: I don't know what judge, if any, was assigned to the case in Zagel's absence.

There is a status hearing on the matter on Wednesday, and the public should get more information then.