While I am hoping that the issue with Karl was simply a case of "he misspoke," I am really dissatisfied with the state's motion, in several ways:
1 It simply glosses over what Karl said and we all saw, never even stating it (as if they hope the judge doesn't find out) where he said that "yesterday" he was pondering how the correctness of this verdict didn't matter since she already had 3 life sentences.
... In that or another impromptu post-trial interview in which he said the troubling statement, Karl did say he had not heard of Lori before he was a juror. But to be specific, after the trial-in-chief but before the jury reached a verdict, had he somehow found out that she was already convicted with 3 life sentences? Because that IS what he said. And the state in their reply doesn't even address it.
2 The state's reply gives great weight to the video with HTC - in which she is kinda trying to whitewash the issue for him, without actually saying it. She's far from a neutral party, and if it was a trial, we'd say she was leading the witness (or trying to). This would never work as evidence in a trial. IN FACT, the one time she asked him straight out, he really deflected from answering (and I wondered if he didn't want to admit what he truly did, having come to recognize it was wrong, but didn't want to lie).
The bottom line for me, is that HTC podcast is NOT an objective way to determine the TRUTH of what he said and meant. It was not an adversarial questioner. It was not under oath. And the state uses it as gospel? Not good.
3 I didn't see where the state even questioned him! Seems to me they just cherry-picked convenient comments, rather than looking for the facts.
My hope is that he simply misspoke, but I'm not at all convinced that's really what happened. IMO there's only 1 way to settle this properly -- there needs to be an actual hearing.
Karl should get on the witness stand in front of the judge, and be asked direct questions under oath, with the rksk of perjury part of the mix, and testify as to what happened.
Not HTC questions that let him side-step a bit, and where there's no oath and a sympathetic helpful questioner. Let a good attorney or judge ask specific targeted questions in a way that prevents any weasel answer from being said. Ask the hard questions about what he meant THAT DAY when he said THIS (not broad questions whose answer could be excused as "before the trial" questions). And if necessary, maybe even say, "BTW Karl, what would the court find if it examined your personal phone or computer for the search history at that day or before." Let him consider the need to be honest and fess up, to whatever he meant.
If they would do that, THEN it would feel like this got examined properly. But this reply they've written? It's not good at all.
While it's not convenient to Karl, or others, to have a hearing and perhaps end up with a redo of the trial, the truth and a FAIR trial really matters. Not that she'll win if they try her again, but if you want to try her, you MUST have an impartial jury. You don't want her getting off on appeal somewhere down the line, because a juror messed up and it was swept under the rug, imo.
Oh, and I don't think you can unring the bell if he did mean what he said. It very well may have impacted his vote, all votes were necessary, and NO WAY to rerun it and see what he would have thought otherwise. IF he did a lookup, that is.
