a point of clarification (just jumping in, sorry if already covered earlier)
If the jury were organized in its deliberations, would it not first determine if the act satisfied the lesser of the two charges — that is, manslaughter? and then go on to consider murder only if manslaughter were satisfied.
the instructions list the charges in decreasing severity: first, murder, then second, manslaughter.
so the jury instructions would seem passively to encourage unorganized thinking.
if the jury first considers murder, and acquits Z, then if the jury next considers manslaughter, a lurking M sympathizer would jump at the chance to convict, claiming manslaughter a reasonable compromise. However, this would be illogical if the elements of manslaughter were included in the elements of murder.
You don’t call something an aquittal unless both charges are decided “not guilty”. That’s a verdict and is announced.
I don’t know for certain but I’m under the impression you deal with the charge first that the state put forth and tried to prove. If all agree he’s guilty of that, it’s a guilty verdict. If they agree he’s not guilty or they can’t agree on that, they can choose to move to the lesser included of manslaughter but they do not HAVE to. That they would consider and deliberate on the lesser included means somebody in that room wanted to go there. We don’t know how many. Could even be just one.
I meant to say that an acquittal is called that when he is found not guilty on one, or both, of the charges. Depends if they only consider murder2, or, if they also include deliberation on the lesser. Because they do not even have to consider the lesser included. They can, but don’t have to. So if they consider only murder2 and say not guilty, they acquit him. If they consider both and find guilty on one, then he is not acquitted, he is found guilty on one of the charges.