Which as you well know, juries have been known to do. Predicting verdicts is like betting 00 on a single spin of a roulette wheel. Which is why I laugh anytime I actually see someone trying to predict the outcome. (I know you aren't but others here have.)
Sure, but I think thats more rare. In the trials I've seen, the jurors go where they are led by the evidence; now that doesn't always mean that the evidence goes towards the truth depending on the manipulation of said evidence.
Everyone I work with argues the case either on emotional points or on meaningless factoids. "He shouldn't have gotten out of the car!" etc. Hopefully the jury isn't the same way.
Thats because the majority of people are not following the case and only believe what was shared with them by the media when the case first became popular. Throughout this entire trial the defense has been able to destroy anything put forth by the prosecution...hell, even the prosecutions witnesses were better for the defense.
Yep. Jurors are the X-factor which made me swear that I will take every traffic ticket and beyond I ever get to court unless its a case that appeals to emotions. One I remember in particular was a guy that sped through a work zone with workers present, and didn't even have a coherent argument about his case for the entire trial, and photographic evidence made it beyond any doubt he had broken the law. The jury ended up finding him not guilty because a second guy drove by at the same time going slightly faster, a fact the guy who was defending himself had failed to even bring up during court, and something there had been absolutely no testimony about.
