The key comes down to reasonable doubt. In order to subscribe to this opinion, a juror would have to concurrently accept the alternate theory that others could have committed this crime. There is no *middle ground* here. I'm leaving the subject of MOTIVE out of this discussion. So, if I were on this jury confronting an *AM sympathetic* juror, I would press their logic supporting their belief that others could be responsible>>>> notwithstanding>>>>AM's LIEING about NOT BEING PRESENT... the GUNS used in the killings belonging to AM are missing...and the clothes he wore at the scene of the crime are missing.I don't know, it depends. Granted, I don't think that the state has presented a strong case. It is circumstantial. And the accused, AM, went on the stand and testified that he was a drug addict, liar, and thief. It was interesting to watch.
I won't be surprised by a mistrial, I think AM still has cash stashed away, and in that area, even $100,000 is a hefty sum. I wouldn't put it past AM to have found a way to pay off a juror. It only takes one for an acquittal.
Maybe that juror might reconsider?
Last edited: