The judge from Anna Nicole's trial on HLN said he read Juan's closing a "few times" and it was "all over the place" and also he thinks jury could be hung up on this part in the jury instructions: (paraphrasing) if they are unsure as to which it is b/w 1st degree, 2nd degree, crime of passion, they have to go with the lowest one. Jean C is agreeing with him.
I just do not see how this jury can go to anything except 1st degree. Per the jury instructions, there's no way they can go to anything else. For example, let's say they think the first shot (assuming they think gunshot first) is from "heat of passion," well then between the gunshot and the stab to the vena cavae is PREMEDITATION, and then from the stab to the vena cavae to the slitting of the throat is AGAIN PREMEDITATION. I thought Juan made this very clear. But then again, like the judge said, maybe they are confused with the part that says they have to go with the lowest charge.
I just don't see the point of these "alternate theories." In this case, they had the defendant herself TELL THEM HERSELF WHAT SUPPOSEDLY HAPPENED. There wree only two people in that bathroom, Jodi and Travis. So I do not see why heat of passion would even come in...her version was self-defense. Why would they think that she said self-defense and gave them a first-hand account of self-defense, but yet they don't take her story and believe some other made-up story?? I don't get this. This case is so simple. They heard Jodi's story. It's obviously false. Any other alternative which doesn't involve premeditation would mean they are not believing the state's story, OR Jodi's story, but instead some third version of what happened. So then the question becomes: Ok, the State wasn't there in the bathroom that night, so yes they could be wrong. But Jodi was. If something else (other than what State is accusing her of) happened, why would she lie about it and make up another story??
