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.
“That actually could be problematic.”
You can bet they’ll TRY to make an issue of it.
Who knows what has been edited, it did not appear to be, and there was no follow up question as to whether or not that was a consideration in her decision.
Too late now.
If the prosecutor had made a timely objection, I would think the defense could have rephrased the question in two parts:
Huh? the part about being a pathological liar was stricken not the part about him saying he thought GZ was being truthful. It was fine for her to consider that statement from the lead investigator about GZ being truthful.
“improper deliberation may open that door”
Actually, they could claim they all got drunk and picked a result out of a hat, and it probably would stick. What goes on in a jury room is deliberately kept inviolate, because otherwise EVERY verdict could be overturned a year or two later by a jury member claiming something. Apart from bribery or threat of force, jurors can do pretty much what they want once deliberations start. There have been cases where jurors reported drunkeness and drug use during deliberations, and the verdict stood.
Just did a walk-thru of the house and couldn’t find the book on evidence where I read that last month, so I cannot cite any cases. Here is an example from Texas that I found on a quick Internet search:
“Texas jury verdicts are a lot like Las Vegas. Even the law recognizes that what happens in the jury room needs to stay in the jury room.
With one exception (the “outside influence” exception), Texas Rules of Evidence 606 expressly prohibits jurors from testifying, either live or by affidavit, as to any matters that occurred during deliberations. In practical terms, this rule means that after the last argument is made and the door closes behind the twelfth juror entering the jury room, most anything that jurors say or do from that point until the verdict is returned to the courtroom is protected from disclosure. Whether jurors speculated as to liability insurance, tossed coins, drew straws, or conducted themselves in any other manner prohibited by law during deliberations, the only eye-witnesses who could testify about it are expressly prohibited from doing so.”
http://judgebonniesudderth.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/proof-of-jury-misconduct-during-deliberations/
This is from Florida...guess a lottery WOULD invalidate the verdict :>)
“In addition to misconduct which is considered extrinsic to the verdict, a special category of misconduct exists for verdicts determined by aggregation and average (quotient verdicts), by lot or game of chance, or other artifice. Verdicts determined in this manner are uniformly set aside.[5] Other forms of misconduct have generated litigation over the impact of the alleged misconduct on the fair and impartial administration of justice. One of the tenets of a fair trial is that the jury should consider only evidence or information received in the courtroom...Unless the allegations of misconduct included consideration of information not received in court, or there has been improper contact with members of the jury during the course of the trial or deliberations, the courts have been loath to consider requests to set aside verdicts, despite indications of irregularities, misunderstandings, and errors in the determination of the verdict.[7]”
I think that a reasonable person could come to that conclusion without the part that was removed from the record.
He said as much with his answers on cross.
Take a look at the first few moments after the judge admonished the jury. O’Mara asked the same question in a slightly different way that didn’t require Serino to vouch for Zimmerman, and still elicited the same information. I think that obviates any potential problem.