You are right...Both want to say the other guy did it,not me
at this point everyone and his grandmother knows that the prosecution withheld video evidence upon which their case rests.
they would discuss this failure to provide potentially exculpatory evidence except that it could only be learned by going outside the courtroom, which is (iirc) not allowed.
thus it has become obvious to the jury that the deliberations are a joke. no jury member can explicitly describe the nature of the joke.
the judge is no doubt angered that the prosecution is to blame, but the judge is being made the pressure point.
the prosecution is happy because they think that they have hoisted the judge on his petard of pride. Certainly, the judge demonstrated his mastery of trial law rules in court, but (perhaps) so far, in the DA calculus, he is acting to save his own skin at the potential expense of KRs.
Maybe the judge is allowing more time for the supposed pro-KR majority in the jury to “wake up” the supposed anti-KR minority.
The point that the pro-KR majority could hammer onto the anti-KR minority would be whether or not the fuzzy drone video proves beyond reasonable doubt that KR pointed his gun at Rosenbaum. Of course, it does not, and anyone who watches the tuesday evening media knows about the DA misconduct in regards to the video.
The minority strategy would be to provoke someone in the majority to mention the fuzzy drone video DA misconduct, and then send a complaint to the judge. If the judge received such as complaint, the judge would then be forced to kick the alleged pro KR juror(s) off the jury and appoint an alternate (*). Is this correct? The alternate(s) could delay the verdict deliberations and even shift the balance of power in the jury room.
(*) or the judge could declare a mistrial with prejudice at that point, in response to the defense motions for that.