One juror “smirked” at a pros. line and that’s “bad for the defense”??
Define “smirked”.
Do you read minds also?
Just wondering...
And I’m thinking, there SHOULD be an aquittal but if the jury is hung, instead of convicting, that’s better than nothing.
Therefore a single juror smirk - and even “mind reading” them as possibly for conviction - does not a conviction make.
Sorry, I’m just not getting your thought processess...
I would be more curious as to where they are looking and which are taking notes.
Perhaps I am taking your "do you read minds?" reply the wrong way (doubt it, though), so I'll simply say "fine".
Next time I will simply ignore.
“And Im thinking, there SHOULD be an aquittal but if the jury is hung, instead of convicting, thats better than nothing.”
While a hung jury would be better than nothing, as you state, I think that it would depend largely on the actual jury count.
5 to 1 to acquit, totalitarians may not want to retry.
5 to 1 to convict? They would probably retry again.
Split vote? In this travesty they would probably retry.
>> if the jury is hung, instead of convicting, thats better than nothing.
Hung jury is MUCH better than nothing. As someone on the thread pointed out earlier, one minute after the judge declares mistrial from hung jury, West and O’Mara are down at the courthouse filing to have the Verdict of Acquittal that Nelson denied upheld by an appeals court. If they’re successful — and I think they very well might be — Zimmerman is acquitted. No new trial, no nuthin’ else.
Keep in mind that in some ways the VOA is *easier* to argue, because the JUDGE can’t claim she didn’t ALSO know about the text messages, drugs, football physique, and all that other stuff she wouldn’t let ‘em show the jury. I think once quality judge(s) look at all the data she had, they’ll reverse her denial of the VOA.
There is precedent for an appeals court reversing a denied VOA, too — ‘cause O’Mara PRESENTED CASES to Nelson when he argued for Z’s VOA.
Meanwhile, through the process, Z is still out of jail.