It is a game that somebody ought to put a stop to - trying to get dirt on jurors. We shouldn't be asking about 40-year-old arrests. Why do we need it? So these lawyers can play all of these strategic games?

One lesson that we might draw from this incident is that we shouldn't be asking so many questions of jurors. Maybe we should just be asking if they have ever been convicted of a crime, that we ought to know. But, do we really need to know about every arrest and every civil lawsuit and what television programs they watch?

How can you forget the last two weeks of deliberations and pretend they never happened. That, obviously, is an impossibility.

If I were the judge, I would just continue with the 12 jurors she's got. I think it'd be a bad mistake to substitute the jurors at this time.