I could conclude she drove drunk at 5am though... we kinda know where she was and wasn't after that time and no one testified she was drinking at 5am but we do see her driving and bumping John's car.
Yes, lots of medical issues /processing of bac with all that , so no solid proof as was noted in trial due to that. Timewise, that night. Let it go, be fair and just. IMO
Jury asked about timeline of driving drunk. ATTY'S back to the jurors, situation seems resolved. . Let it go, nothing of solid fact of levels at that night, just the hospital in morning. where of course she may of drank after going to John's after dropping him off. Let it go jurors.
Thank you!
IMO, no jury who meant to acquit would allow a guilty verdict to stand. It would be a mistrial.
No one could have foreseen the issue that everyone foresaw
It takes 12 people agreeing on a charge to convict. It only takes 1 person disagreeing for a mistrial. It isn't easy to convict someone.
She is not charged with simple OUI.
It is a lesser included charge on count 2. The jury was just asking if they could convict on the lesser included 5 (simple OUI) without convicting on charge 2 (manslaughter). So although you are correct that she was not initially charged with OUI, it is possible that she will be found guilty of OUI alone.
having the NG at each count would have solved the jury's concerns...just as Jackson had asked. Bet he will not be doing a case again in Ma.
Yes, she is.
She is.
