As far as I know all we know is it's a younger jury.What you write makes sense to me, but I find it sad and quite disturbing that in reality perhaps only a minority can be expected to understand the concept of BARD, the prosecutor's burden and have the willingness to put aside bias and apply the faculty of reason to evidence. Or if not this, then perhaps choose to just ride with the more outspoken jurors and follow their lead. It's so cynical but perhaps it is just realistic, idk.
At trial x1 though, the info from the jurors who spoke out was that they were hung nine guilty, three not guilty on the manslaughter charge, not the murder charge. On the murder charge, the last jury had apparently understood the CW had not met their burden to prove intent. Imo.
But that doesn't change the fact nine out of twelve apparently believed a vehicle impact had occurred. That is worrisome. Jmo
ETA I wanted to add l don't think the jurors last time needed to understand physics or advanced math (I don't) to appreciate the scientific value of the expert testimony. I thought the evidence was presented in layperson language and unpacked to make it comprehensible for the average person. Jmo
Mark Bederow did say that there's a retired LE on the jury.
How local?
I gather the name of the defendant, JOL their relatives and of all the wittiness/ relatives names would have been read to potential.