Posted on 03/10/2011 1:30:35 PM PST by Responsibility2nd
were the definitions in accorance with that states laws?
It doesn't matter. If the juror had begun the trial with an inaccordant idea of the difference and applied that idea in reaching the verdict it would fall under the general ignorance allowed to any juror.
Gaining the concept, accurate or otherwise, during the course of the trial is no different.
“How is the case any different if the “idiot juror” had known “the legal definitions of murder and manslaughter” before the case had begun?”
LOGIC??
Seriously?
You are going to use logic here?
/sarc
Your theory would legalize jury tampering by giving third parties the ability to alter legal definitions.
If a jurror is that stupid then he or she should not have been on the jury.
It is right to seek contempt against the juror.
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.