Given ouija boards are based on what the participants expect the outcome to be, then doesn't seem too wild an idea to me. Ouija's only give results that the people holding the marker believe it to be - if they thought he was guilty based on the evidence, then the ouija result would tend to show that too.
In the case you're describing though (mid-90's murder trial), IIRC it was only some of the jurors who did it, the defendant got a retrial, and was found guilty again.
I don't think you can say the jurors discussed the case with anyone else - to do so would be to concede ouija boards are contacting the dead and other such bollox.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire