Justice Huffman and the panel ultimately conclude that the discharge of the juror here was not okay. That seems right to me. Was the holdout juror miffed? I'm sure she was. She she at some point not feel like participating at the detailed level that the other jurors demanded? Probably. But she was still willing to talk and deliberate. That's all that's required. Sometimes it's hard to explain why you find one person credible and another person not credible. At some point it's perfectly okay to say: "I've already told you, again and again, why I have the view I do. I can't explain it any better than that."
I understand that there's a downside in having to try a person again. But there's also a downside in allowing a holdout juror to be coerced, or having her discharged (as here) when the other jurors are upset that she won't change her mind and say she's accordingly not "willing" to deliberate.
So it's a careful balance. And as between coercing a guilty verdict and potentially wasting some time and money on a new trial, my thumb's on the scale of doing the latter.
