During break, I'd like to take a minute and put a challenge to all watching this trial daily.
When watching another trial, we had an anonymous legal poster with a dedicated thread on that forum for answering legal aspects of the case. No discussion allowed, just Q & A. A few years later, we learned that anonymous poster was Chris Darden of OJ fame. Anyway, I learned a great deal from him, especially because it was the first case and trial I'd ever followed. I've never been on an actual jury, just into the jury box and dismissed by the judge after questioning by def/judge/pros(declined to question). I think it may have been a conflict of interest on my part, dunno for sure. But my daughter is a forensic chemist and I believe someone from her lab was a state's witness.
In trial, each juror usually has a 'hook' piece of evidence pointing towards guilt or innocence that they base their decision on. In other words, it was the BIGGEST point of the case, that each particular individual bases their decision on, that to them, there was NO DOUBT. It could be as simple as say, Gracie's testimony, ADDED to what may come later in trial.
See, you can't make your judgment on one piece of evidence, but the totality of the evidence. It's like a big puzzle and that 'hook' may be the defining piece that means the puzzle is complete.
Just for each, why not take notes, # each point, guilty or innocent. Then as the trial nears an end, or during deliberations, and review your findings, see what you can come up with. Oh, and pick your hook!
Not mandatory, but just something different. There won't be a grade and no one gets a prize. Well, except a little more knowledge or whatever, on how juries come to their conclusions.
Just, fyi and fwiw,
fran