oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,776
That was me and I wasn't saying that they would do it as a revenge verdict regardless of the evidence, or to counteract the verdict he got. I was saying if they felt he was guilty then they aren't going to waiver or compromise, especially if they feel like if they did they'd have another Zimmerman case on their hands. If they followed that case and felt wrong was done then I would think they'd be more inclined to stick to their guns than compromise, which would have been more likely if they'd never heard or followed the Zimmerman case. I think they would be more apt to compromise then, if that makes sense. There's a juror from the Zimmerman trial who now regrets, or at least questions her decisions. There could be some jurors who are thinking they are not going to waiver at all no matter what, when they would if not for the Zimmerman case. IMO.
Hope that makes sense.
Yes, it makes sense but jurors are urged to compromise. And many do come to a compromised verdict.......i.e...compromised down from first degree to second degree. No one is suppose to be so set in their decision they will not listen to what the other jurors have to say or refuses to deliberate further.
Since they haven't come out to say they are hung I do think they are making progress.
IMO