as jury instructions will address how to evaluate testimony. This is from the standard criminal jury instrctions for AZ:
I think the juror questions illustrate their awareness of credibility. This case is almost wholly dependent on the defendants credibility and I think JM has elicited overwhelming evidence, from the testimony of the defendant herself, that she lacks any semblance of credibility. The jurors may essentially then just disregard all of her testimony. The only alternate facts in evidence are those the prosecutor laid out. I think that bodes well.
I don't see the jurors wasting their time trying to make sense of her testimony and resolve it's conflicts. They are much more likely to disregard it in it's entirety, IMO. If so, there should be a fairly quick verdict. Can anyone imagine anything being "quick" in this case? For the sake of TA's family I hope the verdict is.
http://www.azbar.org/media/58832/2-standard_criminal_revised_2012.pdf