Final answer:
Signs of hope for a defendant's supporters arise when jury members do not agree on a verdict, such as taking time to deliberate or asking to review evidence, which may indicate doubt about the defendant's guilt.
Step-by-step explanation:
When jury members do not agree on a verdict, signs of hope for a defendant's supporters may come in various forms. For instance, when the jury takes longer than expected to deliberate or asks to review certain pieces of evidence, these actions can suggest that there are doubts about the defendant's guilt. Specifically, actions like the jury picking a skilled foreman to coordinate deliberations, or when jurors ask to review evidence or testimony transcripts can inspire hope among a defendant's friends and supporters that the jury is carefully considering all aspects of the case. If the jury is struggling to reach a unanimous decision, this could also be construed as a positive sign, indicating that there may not be overwhelming evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. In cases where critical race theory is discussed, the concern is that the evidence may be viewed differently by jurors of different backgrounds, and the verdict may ultimately come down to power dynamics within the jury room. Ultimately, the jury's deliberation process and the signs they telegraph throughout can have significant implications for the defendant's outcome.