- Early in the trial (well before the prosecution closed), one jury member suggested that, "Once this is all over, I'll invite Joe Karam over to my house so we can all meet him."
- At week nine, after the prosecution case had completed a jury member suggested that they go to the judge with their not guilty verdict and save the taxpayer a lot of money. A vote was taken and two others agreed.
- Two of the jurors who agreed to the above idea, then spent the rest of the trial swapping notes and not paying attention, something which was noticed by Martin Van Beynen, journalist of the Press.
- These same two jurors were the ones who hugged David Bain after the trial and went to his victory party.
- Another jury member brought in one of Karam's books at some stage during the trial. He made it clear that his wife, who attended the trial from time to time, was trying to get it autographed by Karam.
- This same juror presented some printouts about Karam's campaign that he/she had downloaded from the internet. The juror was quick to add that he/she hadn't read them, yet he/she still brought them in to show other members of the jury.
- At the end of the trial, jurors were instructed to leave via the back door. Six of them refused and left via the front door where the media and David Bain were.
The above is additional to previous reports of jury members being invited to attend the after trial party by the Defence team and then two of them turning up before realising that it was highly inappropriate to do so and reports of one jury member hugging the defendant.
It has been brough to our attention that in NZ law we are not meant to publish anything this close to the inner deliberations of a jury in a criminal trial, but in this case we claim that publication is in the public interest and we will defend our right to do so.
Three jurors also visited Every Street of their own volition, this despite the requirement that jurors not make their own investigations, but base their decision on what is presented to them in court.
There is a very strong argument that reprinting of the book David and Goliath was a violation of sub judice