Completely irrelevant, as far as the jury knew she was clean as the driven snow. That is why trials should occur in court and not on TV where cerdicts are rendered based on facts in evidence. You're basing an opinion on a TV trial, not a courtroom trial.
She has one felony arrest prior to these new felonies.
Again irrelevant, you may disagree but that is the law.
I agree with you and probably 99% of all other people who believe she is culpable in the death of her child, the problem as presented is identifying just how. The coroner could not even list her death as anything other than unknown homicide.
Where do you go with that? Should juries convict on what they interpret to be crimes in their eyes? Do we want a system where people can be whipped up by the emotion of the case rather then see true justice of people convicted of the actual, provable crime they committed?
Our justice system is very concise and the government has to prove specific elements of crimes to gain convictions....as it should be.
The problem is, the government did not meet its obligation, they screwed up....when do they ever do things right.
This Case is a travesty all of the way around, there are no winners this time.
It's not the system that is bad, its the incompetent people who run it.
Since she did not take the stand, her priors were not introduced into court. Of course I understand that.
I was talking to Freepers who insist she is as innocent as the driven snow - not the jurors. The jurors, meanwhile, were a pack of morons. They had a large body of circumstantial evidence in which to convict without knowing she was already a convicted felon.