Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
I don’t see it. A mistrial should be based on what happened in the court room at the trial. Not on something a random person said somewhere else. Even if that random person was a United States Congresswoman.
Judge Cahill said may have given and may result. Far from a definitive statement. Then he asked the prosecutor for his thoughts and he said about what I said above.
|
One side or the other (I'm uncertain which one) asked that the jury be sequestered and the judge said "No." The question then becomes (1)did one or more members of the jury hear what the random person said and (2)did the random person's statement influence the jury's decision?
Seems to me that sequestering the jury should be SOP in a murder trial, particularly if that trial is as highly publicized as this one. Seems like a no brainer to me but then I'm not a judge.
