but if the jurors considered evidence/testimony that they were told to specifically disregard, it could be problematic. If the prosecutor had made a timely objection, I would think the defense could have rephrased the question in two parts:
- Does your job require you to watch people closely while they are being interviewed and notice any behaviors, mannerisms, or other tells which would indicate that they were being deceptive?
- Did George Zimmerman exhibit any such tells?
Certainly the Juror is supposed to decide for itself whether Zimmerman was telling the truth, being mindful the possibility that Zimmerman might have been sufficiently skilled at lying that Serino wouldn't notice, but (correct me if I'm wrong) Serino wasn't merely a person who watched the video tape--he was in the room with Zimmerman and would have been in a position to notice signs of deceit which the tape might miss, and thus his failure to notice any should be significant.
That’s more or less what O’Mara did following the admonishment to the jurors the next morning. He re-asked the question in a way that didn’t have Serino vouching for Zimmerman’s honesty, but still made the point.