I thought the verdict had to be a unanimous yes or else there could be no conviction? At least that's the way it was last march when I served on a Jury in Detroit.... did something change that I missed?
Why hasn't the judge even considered the defenses motion for mistrial with prejudice? Or is he waiting to see what the jury says first, so he doesn't have to rule on it?
I watched almost the entire trial, how anyone could even be in the fence about his innocence is mystifying
Remember what 12 SJW idiots can do - the O.J. Simpson jury.
if it is 6-6 and they are divided solely on Lib vs Conservatives this could be deliberated for years. Their is no middle ground
I thought the verdict had to be a unanimous yes or else there could be no conviction? At least that's the way it was last march when I served on a Jury in Detroit.... did something change that I missed?
If this is true, the judge needs to declare a mistrial with prejudice at 3AM and end this farce.
I believe this is what is going to happen....
Why hasn't the judge even considered the defenses motion for mistrial with prejudice? Or is he waiting to see what the jury says first, so he doesn't have to rule on it?
I don't think so.
So..... Becker News got the scoop?
Split with how to report 'not guilty' without harm to themselves maybe.