IANAL but my understanding is that on a jury there are deliberations and then votes. A juror gets to vote; doesn't have to explain the vote but just casts a v

IANAL but my understanding is that on a jury there are deliberations and then votes. A juror gets to vote; doesn't have to explain the vote but just casts a vote. If the judge can tell a juror how they must vote, then we don't need a jury. Else we have a jury, and the jurors get to vote. Maybe the judge instructs the jurors to consider this, ignore that, on and on. But still a juror gets to vote and for reasons they don't have to explain. It's our jury system. Maybe some lawyers, judges, etc. have had lots of biggie ideas about this and that legal detail about what would, could, should be the case for juries, instructions to the jurors, all sorts of this and that. Still a juror gets to sit in the jury box, watch the trial, think, think for themselves, and then vote and not explain their vote.