Max King of the Wild said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
The word of one juror is just as good as any other. The point of having many jurors creates a solid base for a proper verdict because deliberation must run its course. As I said, I would've found him not guilty of second degree murder myself. Based on the facts presented, there was no malicious intent shown. In primary charge of manslaughter is another story. Based on a legal gameplan, if it was primary charge of manslaughter things would've been different, this is my point.
In your attempt to discredit professionals who have been doing it for probably longer than we've been living in their experience, most of them were saying acquittal as well based on the facts.
Fact:
Mark O'mara is the new Johnny Cochran. That guy is just an amazing lawyer. People are going to be studying his defense tactics for years to come, just like they did Cochran.
|
The word of one juror saying the vot was split three to three. Meaning they never leaned in the direction of manslaughter like I said. Apparently they asked for clarification because of one hold out and she changed her mind. Like I said they were never considering manslaughter
|
Do you mean never leaned to manslaughter as a primary charge or a lesser charge? I never said he couldn't have been found innocent, either. My point was the probability was higher for him to be found guilty because it fit the bill for the case. On a lesser charge you can still overlook it. Remember manslaughter was on the table but was never pushed until the closing arguments wasn't. Can't blame them.
