(bolded by me)
I'm going to disagree that "the jury" thought she was the cause of his death. According to Yannetti's affidavit the jury was originally split 6-6 and ended up at 8-4 when the mistrial was declared. That's clearly not "the jury", it's only some of the jury. And the important part is that they reached an impasse. Twelve people could not find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on that charge.
Sure sometimes a jury deadlocks at 11-1 because of a single obstinate juror. But that's clearly not what happened here. In any other case it would be a huge embarrassment for the DA to only be able to convince 2/3 of the jury and only on a lesser charge. (Assuming the jury split is accurate.) I think it's a mark of how topsy-turvy this case is that people seem to think that this somehow validates the prosecution.
I will say that I am very curious about how the deliberations went, if/when the jury members ever choose to speak publicly. What they believed happened that night; which witnesses they found believable; what evidence they focused on during their discussions, etc.