It is a good question, one that will be interesting to see if we get an answer.I actually thought maybe the defense woukd filibuster the trial there at the end in order to give another juror an opportunity for excusal (trial reasons, medical reasons, etc) to force the mistrial.
If Harpootlian saw misconduct during the field trip or any time during the trial, why didn't he bring it to the Court's attention?
I don't think our beloved judge is amused.
However, I’m playing devil’s advocate and trying to “explain” it if I was Harpootlian, I think there’s some details he could counter with. Like, on 2/28 when Judge Newman said he was “not pleased” with what the Clerk did in talking to a juror before him; he says in his own words what sounds like a concern, Harpootlian could try to say that in this example the Judge was made aware of a concern, he expressed his own concern, but still did not (from what we know publicly) do anything about that concern regarding his Clerk. This was a few days before the trip to the property. If by this time Harpootlian and Griffin had seen other examples where the Judge may not have taken some of their concerns seriously, then maybe they saw little point in bringing it up then?
Who knows. We only have two partial transcripts and one with several missing pages in their Motion, but it is a good question. IF he did see anything at that jury visit then the question of why he did not bring it up then is important.
Though, to be really clear, I am not sure if we know that he did not bring it up after it happened, right? JMOO