Remember, the judge told the jurors they can consider the prior accusations. The boy who is the youth pastor was very credible on the stand.
Who cares whether the mother is whacked ? She's not asking for money here ! From everything I've heard from people who have seen the police interview with the accuser, he was very credible. 13 year old boys who are cancer victims are not known as good actors during cop interviews.
The fact that the judge allowed testimony of 'prior acts' tells me the judge thinks there is evidence to convict. Remember, judges know the case and all evidence before trial begins. I can't imagine the judge would allow prior acts if he didn't believe guilt of the defendant.
Now, I don't understand how the "prior acts" clause can be constitutional given that the alleged prior acts did not result in any charges. Almost sounds like hearsay. It is part of CA law, but, not permissable in other states.
"Remember, the judge told the jurors they can consider the prior accusations. The boy who is the youth pastor was very credible on the stand.
Who cares whether the mother is whacked ?"
They shouldn't care, and I agree about the youth pastor, but juries seem not to want to put celebrities in jail for some reason.
I was on a jury two years ago, and after two days of testimony two ladies sat in the jury room and announced that only God could judge, so they didn't think they should. As the jury forewoman, I about flipped. Luckily, I remembered that they had sworn to come to a verdict, and that was what saved us from being a hung jury.