And how would that help their case? (Even if race riots are going on outside the courtroom, that should not affect what is going on inside the courtroom.)
The only people the prosecution should be concerned with influencing are the six women who sit on the jury. They have to examine Ms. Jeantel's testimony on its own merits, not on whether someone outside the courtroom might be upset.
[[And how would that help their case? (Even if race riots are going on outside the courtroom, that should not affect what is going on inside the courtroom.)]]
Because if that is ifnact what is goign on, it will subtly work i nthem inds of jurors the idea that an ‘upper class’ man hunted down a lower class minority- After weatchign thecasey anthony case, I learned nev3r to underestimate the guillibility of a jury
[[They have to examine Ms. Jeantel’s testimony on its own merits, not on whether someone outside the courtroom might be upset.]]
In an ideal world you are right- in the world of florida and california (OJ simpson trial) the jurors were manipulated by emotions and jsutice was not served-
Remember, the prosecution began the volley by appeaklign to the jury’s emotions- and I of course don’t know for sure0- but I suspect this ‘may be’ a calculated move o ntheir part to manipulate the emotions of htep ublic- she ‘may have been’ instructed to act even more ignorant and beligerant- the prosecution knowing hte judge wouldn’t dare chastize her for innapropriate court conduct because she’s black and becasue the media has sio racially charged htsi trial that everyoen now must tiptoe around the delicate sensitivities of a cvrowd that’s ready to explode at the slightest provocation
and don’t get me wrong- I’m just guessing- I suspect the prosecution is devious- but they may not too- it was just a feelign I have about hte case