Posted on 07/15/2013 5:12:50 PM PDT by kristinn
>> its hard changing minds like that will be interesting to know how it was done
Not necessarily... to go into the jury room disbelieving he was defending himself shows a weak mind that didn’t pay attention and/or was incapable of reasoning.
A little firm but gentle help recalling facts and reasoning with them can be quite effective.
Then, if there’s one holdout remaining for ideological reasons who understands the logic but refuses to budge in spite of it... five against one peer pressure applied for an hour or three does the trick.
“first day we just tried to get organized. Nominated a foreman. Looked at all evidence. Evidence was not in order. I thought he was not guilty. State did not take proper evidence. I feel I believe I know what happened based on evidence.”
Thanks SEMom! Missed most of it but can probably find a replay. Watching now.
The law became VERY confusing.
I can get every channel on Dish but CNN just went and is stayin black screen....anyone ?
“we listened 8 or 9 times to all the tapes. The 2nd degree charge was thrown to us, which was very confusing. We sent a question to the judge and judge said all question had to be yes or no and was non responsive.”
Sorry, no teevee...
>> The law became VERY confusing.
Great job, Debby.
mine too,moved to non HD,works
The prosecution still came pretty close to hanging the jury with their constant and incessant emotion appeal.
She she fell for that. He set her up.
TM’s heart was in the right place too - that’s why GZ hit it.
Thank you I guessed I missed it? 7:44 here CST
“there were a couple of jurors that wanted to convict him of something but when we talked it all out there was nothing he was guilty of.”
AC is trying to get her to say getting out of the car was the real issue.
“gz feared for his life there was no doubt of that”
Thanks for the recaps.
>> The prosecution still came pretty close to hanging the jury with their constant and incessant emotion appeal.
Wow. You sure have a lot of self-esteem invested in that “chicks can’t do the right thing” nonsense, don’t you. Even after being proven wrong.
That actually could be problematic. I haven't watched the show so don't know if she said that and what the context was, but if the jurors considered evidence/testimony that they were told to specifically disregard, it could be problematic. I would think that double jeopardy applies, so he couldn't be tried again, but I think that improper deliberation may open that door.
And that is such a load of CRAP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.