How can someone in good concience vote to convict someone who wasn't allowed to voice his defense in court? I certainly would not.
I would love to hear the instructions the jury was given.
That's the part that gets me. It seems that if there is a time a person should be able to have "free speech", then that time oughta be when you are defending your good name!
If any evidence is not alowwed to be presented, seems that would be an appealable issue itself.
I am also curious and haven't seen the details about whether he was pro se or not.
Given that the jury probably never heard WHY no defense was presented, (due to the judge's ruling probably being rendered with the jury absent,) they probably assumed he had none to offer. when left with that assumption, what else could they conclude?
They were explicit and narrow, tailored to ensure a guilty verdict.
The jury was spoon fed a false, dumbed down version of the law's.
There were so many false statements made by the prosecution and upheld by the "judge" that several inditements' of the prosecution and judge should follow, but will not.
One example, the "judge" ruled that our RKBA is a COLLECTIVE right not applicable to individuals!
This despite the Ashcroft DOJ's very clear and public determination that the 2nd. IS in fact an individual right!
Of course now we have Gonzo, who is as anti-RKBA as anyone in the Bush administration can be.
The decision not to allow that defense would have been made without them present. As far as the instructions, and any explanation as to the lack of a defense, there probably either wasn't an explanation given, and they were left to draw their own conclusions, or they were told the defense "chose" not to present a defense (IOW, one the court would allow). Personally I would have voted for acquital, just to throw a wrench in the cogs of the "justice" conveyor, but Freepers probably aren't allowed on a jury.