Ultimately, this was GC's case to lose. She had all the evidence she needed to get a conviction. If she doesn't, it's because she didn't argue the law well and she didn't present the evidence in a concise and clear manner. It's not the jury's fault.
Even Harv too to a degree, but he obviously has Alzheimers.
(Just a joke)Wow I had not heard that.
Agreed!! So many of us said the same thing - that we were on the fence before she testified but she convinced us that she knew prior to the murder that it was going to happen and that she was culpable to assisting it to happen!
Yes - such a great job done on that podcast.
(Just a joke)
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your premise. Remember that both sides are selecting the jury and, depending upon the jury pool, lawyers are often faced with terrible Hobson's choice as they have to choose which juror candidates they should exercise a preemptory challenge to remove. Both attorneys for each defendant were striking every juror they felt would be unfavorable. Thus, the jury ultimately is a compromise and not within the prosecutor's control. You can be critical of her performance, but I don't think many here would disagree that the evidence is compelling and a reasonable person should be able to reach a conclusion. I found her argument to be persuasive and, although I wish her cross had been more extensive, the evidence is there and this jury should be able to reach a verdict.Ultimately, this was GC's case to lose. She had all the evidence she needed to get a conviction. If she doesn't, it's because she didn't argue the law well and she didn't present the evidence in a concise and clear manner. It's not the jury's fault.
Ok, gotcha. He's kind of an enigma in this whole thing.
Well, that sucks. I'm so ready for this Adelson family to be held accountable.
Does this jury really believe SG was doing CA a direct favor? No way SG would have known anything about DM without KM! She is the link.
ETA- Actually, though, the state as about as much evidence on CA as they do KM! He should also be on trial.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your premise. Remember that both sides are selecting the jury and, depending upon the jury pool, lawyers are often faced with terrible Hobson's choice as they have to choose which juror candidates they should exercise a preemptory challenge to remove. Both attorneys for each defendant were striking every juror they felt would be unfavorable. Thus, the jury ultimately is a compromise and not within the prosecutor's control. You can be critical of her performance, but I don't think many here would disagree that the evidence is compelling and a reasonable person should be able to reach a conclusion. I found her argument to be persuasive and, although I wish her cross had been more extensive, the evidence is there and this jury should be able to reach a verdict.
I thought GC did an excellent job. Hindsight is 20/20. I hope for the best but I'm preparing for the worst. The jury is always a wild card.
In a college town you would hope that you would have an intelligent jury pool to choose from. Sadly, this may not be the case this time.