Criminal trials in our justice system make decisions based on evidence introduced in open court. In an effort to restrict outside influences, jurors are told to wait to speak to anyone about the case or access media reports until the trial is completed.

However, once jury deliberations begin, other factors may come into play.

Consider the Murdaugh murder trial.

Twelve jurors plus alternates were selected in one day. The court found over a dozen people in a small county who had not heard enough about this very high-profile case to form an opinion. Or if they had formed an opinion, they promised to be fair and impartial jurors.

According to jurors, they reached verdicts on two First Degree Murder charges and some weapon charges in 45 minutes.

The sentencing, like most of the trial, was televised.

A veteran deputy sheriff stood behind Murdaugh when the judge sentenced Murdaugh to two consecutive life sentences. The deputy, almost imperceptibly, nodded his head several times.

Defendants act a little differently outside the courtroom, and officers may hear comments in a more relaxed atmosphere that can be terribly incriminating.

The family of the defendant, Alex Murdaugh, was rich and powerful. Murdaughs served as prosecutors in the county for a century. Strong feelings concerning the family, one way or the other, would be understandable.

The combination of a jury picked very quickly, verdicts speedily handed down, and an approving nod from an officer may indicate decisions aided by information gained outside of the courtroom.

Sometimes the consideration of all information jurors are privy to may be the best way to achieve true justice.

Jim Leach’s book “You Can Tell ME, Effective Interviewing Made Simple,” is available at “booksbyleach.com” and Amazon.com.