You make a good point - there is a dynamic in a courtroom which magnifies behavior albeit positive or negative. However, the jury has specific instructions to consider the evidence - not speculation, not theory, not personality. To use the affability of Baez as some sort of justification for this universally questioned verdict is offensive. I submit that there are jurors, who have not spoken out, that are wishing this foreman would not presume to speak for them. The more that is said, the less regard the public has for this group of jurors. Sorry - meant to quote: Originally Posted by goldenlover Obviously the jurors did not think it is "smarmy". I am not saying it was right or wrong, just that it is a fact that the personalities of the attorneys does play a role. EVERYTHING plays a role. Just like the stupid guy that gave JA the finger, the judge said that if the jury had seen it it could have caused a mistrial. That is why it was so serious. That gesture by a spectator should have no role in the jurys decision either, but the judge knew it could, because everything does, not just for this jury, but all jurys.