The prosecution normally starts with their best case, and it didn’t turn out too well. As I said from the very beginning there’s something rotten in Denmark!
A jury practice that needs reexamination is, first of all, why we all agree that if a single person on a jury refuses to find a defendant guilty, if the rest of the jury refuses to vote for not guilty, a mistrial should be declared.
But if it is the opposite case, that all but one of the jury want to find that they are not guilty, but one stubborn individual insists on voting for guilt, the judge should instead of declaring a mistrial, have the option to decide that “almost not guilty” is close enough to not guilty, that they, the judge, may find for acquittal.
Thus invoking double jeopardy.
This is because juries can often include someone who is determined to hurt the defendant out of personal hatred or bigotry.
Importantly, judges for the most part, do have the ability to set aside a unanimous jury verdict for guilty right now. So this is not a very radical change.
Thanks for info