I personally do not know how the judge can be blamed for two non-verdicts.
Both juries heard the evidence as did everyone.
No amount of further evidence would have changed things. The facts were before them in great detail.
It certainly was enough to get the conviction!!!
One cannot predict what a jury will do.
They have been instructed to review all evidence in an independent manner and then come together with the sentence they feel is appropriate.
In the first trial, Arias won over the foreman.
In the second trial, one juror felt that there were mitigating factors that could not be ignored.
Although obvious to us, the public, and to the majority of jurors on both juries, it is apparent that not all could, in good conscience, vote like the majority.
Therefore a mistrial in both cases.
It is important to note that in the second trial - NOT ONE JUROR bought Arias side of things. They saw through her lies and saw her total lack of remorse. So....all the crap put forward by the defense (Arias) was discounted. What was not discounted was the "mental health issue" and that is what I have stated all along would be the deciding factor. It was, for one juror.
I believe that there was form of coercion on the part of 11 and it was a factor in the second trial with the jury but one lone jury stood her ground. That is just my uninformed opinion.
Had this been in another state, it is majority rules. But this is Arizona and it must be unanimous.
Both juries heard the evidence as did everyone.
No amount of further evidence would have changed things. The facts were before them in great detail.
It certainly was enough to get the conviction!!!
One cannot predict what a jury will do.
They have been instructed to review all evidence in an independent manner and then come together with the sentence they feel is appropriate.
In the first trial, Arias won over the foreman.
In the second trial, one juror felt that there were mitigating factors that could not be ignored.
Although obvious to us, the public, and to the majority of jurors on both juries, it is apparent that not all could, in good conscience, vote like the majority.
Therefore a mistrial in both cases.
It is important to note that in the second trial - NOT ONE JUROR bought Arias side of things. They saw through her lies and saw her total lack of remorse. So....all the crap put forward by the defense (Arias) was discounted. What was not discounted was the "mental health issue" and that is what I have stated all along would be the deciding factor. It was, for one juror.
I believe that there was form of coercion on the part of 11 and it was a factor in the second trial with the jury but one lone jury stood her ground. That is just my uninformed opinion.
Had this been in another state, it is majority rules. But this is Arizona and it must be unanimous.