That's not the reason for the potential retrial. The reason is the juror lying about not being a victim of sexual assault during jury selection. The juror committed perjury to get selected. If they hadn't been asked if they had been sexually assaulted or he had told the truth, there wouldn't be a case for a retrial. It seems trivial, but if I were on defence I'd want the rules followed. To make it more comparable to your movie Fonda would have had to have signed a document before being selected stating that he had never worn glasses. Obviously no such document was signed in the movie.
I've served on a Jury a few times and in the UK, you are not required to disclose anything, so I can only assume, maybe the law is different in America. However, you are guided by the judge when you adjorn to make a decision. The judges instructions could be what you might want to consider in way of guidance and what you should not consider. Also you are not allowed to do any internet searches on the case, including any of the defendents, while the trial is ongoing. Nor should you discuss the trial with anyone, that guidance can also include your closest family. If you are found to have not followed the guidance, then you put the trial at risk. I've not read anything yet, that suggests a mis-trial has taken place, although I'd be interested to know when the juror first went to the media, if this was at anytime during the trial, then yes, that would be a problem. Jurors are taken from all walks of life, so yes, some may have been victims of sexual abuse, I personally don't see a problem with someone considering one's own personal experiences when coming to a decision, whether the law does is to be seen.
As far as I am know, no mistrial has been declared yet. But I was basing my statements on this from the article quoted above. The Jury had to sign a document stating if they had been a victim of sexual abuse. (I guess the defence didn't want to exclude them from the jury, assuming them to be more likely to convict). This juror seems to claim he swayed the other jurors by telling them of his own sexual abuse, but on the questionnaire said he wasn't a victim of sexual abuse. If he lied on his paperwork, he's a fool and he's screwed up the trial and might end up letting a guilty woman go free. Of course maybe he never did any of this and is just lying to the media saying he swayed the other jurors to get kudos and he never was a victim of sexual abuse. If he's just lying to the media to make himself look good, that's not a crime, that's just being a self promoting twat. However, If he lied to get selected in the jury... That is a crime and unfortunately, possibly, invalidates the result. Somewhere along the way, the juror lied to someone, and how serious that lie is depends on who he lied to. I guess we'll hear more as time goes on.
If you helped to get a sexual abuser locked up as a victim of sexual abuse, why tell the media? Shut your mouth and be happy with the outcome.
They must be confident the controls they have put in place will prevent him from being any danger. Being held before trial is for public protection and isn't meant to be part of any punishment. I don't see how they can be confident though when he has already broken bail conditions before.
Don't shoot the messager but it appears that the reason this is taking so long is because, it as been proven that some of the accusers have been lying and there is no evidence to make any of the charges stick, hence his solicitor getting him bail.
