Discussion in 'Recently Sentenced and Beyond' started by Sleuthster, Oct 25, 2010.
Should #1 under 15.1 robbery be taken literally or does that not apply?
I think I got the question right. This is one funny jury.
I'm lost...we can even hear the sidebar but I'm still lost.
I think I didn't hear all of the question, she read it again and 'principal' is in there, wish I could hear more clearly.
So this is the same question as question 1 but just worded differently.?
WTH is wrong with this jury anyway...
...Or if it is determined that Miss Mee is a principal... (I lost the rest).
I gather the defense is scared that if they answer the question as it is stated it will imply the truth or that she is guilty.. I get that they are doing their job and giving her a fair trial, but wouldn't that be the point?
Is it a jury from that famous P. place?
The first question was clarification of "abiding conviction of guilt."
The second question is that should the statute be taken literally that Ms. Mee is a principal or is it principle? in the robbery.
The judge is saying that the law should be taken literally.
The problem I think the jury is having is a mental block. Even though she didn't pull the trigger, she set the man up. They cannot accept it because she looks like a young girl.
Judge needs to make.a.decision.
Camera is on victims mother (pretty sure)..sad I saw her in an interview a couple of days ago and she seemed so broken and hopeless.. she just wants justice.
Very nice.. he agreed with the wording the judge made to the jury, then motioned for a mistrial based on what she said to the jury.
He made Nurmi proud today.
They need to hurry up, 20/20 is on soon and it is about the Levi Chavez debacle of a trial.
Arrgg I already missed almost a half hour, thanks for reminding me Popsicle.
we are live
Happy for Shannon's mother. Shes waited too long. Unfortunately this isnt the end for her.