Are you serious? Now I'm mad all over again.
STRONG CIRCUMSTANTIAL = BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT=GUILTY!!!
It sound like these jurors didn't listen to any of the instructions. Arghhhhhh!
I completely agree. I just wish one juror would come out and say they made a mistake. I think I could take that more than what I'm hearing from the jurors right now.
One, the jury just couldn't process the forensics. Also, they obviously didn't understand they had the option of lesser included offenses they could convict her of. I firmly believe they didn't understand the jury instructions and held the SA to "beyond all doubt" and not "beyond a reasonable...
If Juror 3 didn't think it was first degree murder, there were so many lesser charges they could have convicted on. I just don't think the jury understood the instructions or their options.
This jury doesn't realize what they have done. They are going to have to live with this for the rest of their lives. I wouldn't be surprised if a few jurors actually say that upon reflection they believe ICA is guilty. I also wouldn't be surprised if GA and CA do not stay together. This is just...
If the jury comes back with 1st degree murder they will continue to be sequestered and not allowed to speak to the media until they have reached a verdict in the penalty phase.
If the jurors believe the duct tape was on Caylee's face they will convict of 1st degree murder. If they can't come to an agreement on that there will be a compromised verdict. I can't see a not guilty.
As much as the jurors want to go home they also want to look at and touch various pieces of evidence. I bet they will spend quite a bit of time on the photos of the duct tape to see if they can come to an agreement as to whether the tape was on the face of Caylee. I imagine this is a point of...
Different judges allow different things. Some judges don't want the lawyers to talk that much about the law others give much leeway. In closing attorneys present the law and argue how the facts of a case fit or don't fit. They are just trying to put their spin on it. HHJP's jury instructions...
I'm guessing they think there is enough evidence for the jury to come back with something less than 1st degree murder. If she testified she probably would have increased her changes of getting the DP.
The admission of grief expert testimony in the DT's CIC seemed a bit strange. I would think it more likely to come up during the penalty phase. Whether or not the expert could testify as to an opinion based on examining the defendant would depend. Would this judge view it as some type of...
I believe the DT said the expert has not talked with ICA, so additional hurdles might include a hearing to determine the basis for the opinion. It might be deemed appropriate that the expert, before rendering an opinion, interview ICA. If that occurred its possible the state could ask that one...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.