I gather the defense is scared that if they answer the question as it is stated it will imply the truth or that she is guilty.. I get that they are doing their job and giving her a fair trial, but wouldn't that be the point?
The first question was clarification of "abiding conviction of guilt."
The second question is that should the statute be taken literally that Ms. Mee is a principal or is it principle? in the robbery.
The judge is saying that the law should be taken literally.
The problem I think the jury is having is a mental block. Even though she didn't pull the trigger, she set the man up. They cannot accept it because she looks like a young girl.
Camera is on victims mother (pretty sure)..sad I saw her in an interview a couple of days ago and she seemed so broken and hopeless.. she just wants justice.
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.