We have seen 4-jurors make claim that (2) of the charges were voted unanimous for acquittal, 2-of the jurors made that known directly to defense counsel. Jurors are not lawyers in most cases, and the CW does not want those charges to simply be purged from any forthcoming indictments. I believe the whole topic lands firmly on the Judge, that the rapid dismissal of the jurors in spite of there being (3) charges under deliberation, was intentional and brings us to exactly this point.
I don't know what would be applied as constraint to ensure the integrity of jurors responses to inquiries at this point in time, considering that now the jurors know who commissioned and paid for the ARCCA experts, they know they were presented with deceiving and improper evidence by the CW (the salley port video comes immediately to mind) and they know Proctor and Albert are suspended, in Proctor's case for his behavior demonstrating extreme prejudice as he undertook the subject investigation. At this point, all the jurors have to feel they were shortchanged by the judge and the proceedings overall, they were left in the dark and not given a realistic opportunity to get it right. MOO
If the jury were polled in the normal sense, it could be anticipated that the Acquittal votes would be reported as indicated by the defense, but the OUI charges....entirely possible that the outcome would differ from that reported by the (4) who have come forward to date. MOO again.
So as speculative scenario: lets say the poll results for the OUI come back 5-7 instead of 8-4. Then what? Would the DA see the scales tilting or just be relieved that he would have a new jury in the upcoming proceedings? And the Judge? Would any of the rulings about permitted evidence or extent/content of expert testimony change?
