In a case where a jury was allowed to go home after deliberations, what argument might D's counsel make for a reversal?

In the context of a jury's conduct during deliberations, allowing the jury to go home after they have begun deliberations can raise concerns about the integrity of the deliberative process. One primary argument D's counsel might make for reversal is that this practice could undermine the fairness of the trial. When jurors are allowed to leave the courtroom and return home, they may be exposed to external influences such as media coverage, conversations with family and friends, or other outside information that could bias their considerations of the case.

The fundamental principle of jury deliberation is that it should be conducted free from outside interference, ensuring that jurors rely solely on the evidence presented in court. Permitting jurors to go home could create a situation where they are no longer isolated from outside influences, which is a crucial element of ensuring a fair trial. This is particularly significant in high-profile cases or those that involve contentious issues.

Thus, the argument for reversal based on the jury being allowed to go home after deliberating hinges on the potential compromise of jurors' impartiality and the integrity of their final verdict.