This means one of the jurors was sitting in the jury room claiming Orange Taylor III was not guilty of any of the charges he could have been found guilty of, no?
Judge Archie Moore gave the jury some instructions with some pretty broad leeway in this case so if we have a lawyer or legal expert among us, here is your chance to inform us of what just happened.
5 comments:
So once again any of you legal experts and or lawyer types feel free to jump on in here and explain like when the next trial might begin, what do you think the jury count was (Yul Brenner) etcetera, excetera, excetera.
It'll be just like Court TV but only here....and you're not getting any money from YCD. You're not.
Or if you played a lawyer on TV and wish to remain anonymous we can work with that...
I watched the juror on video from mlive.com on why she voted the way she did.
She said it was not proven that he was in the room before she died. Later she says it wasn't proven that he was in the room at all.
I guess he must have lobbed a hallway shot onto her thigh and sheet. Sorry for being so crude but the insanity to all of this in my opinion is unreal.
New trial to start in January. I suggestion is that the prosecutors start lining up anything else they can charge this guy with -- sexual assault, B&E ... whatever. Because I think he's gonna walk away from the murder charge.
No it's cool GT Fan, crude of not it IS his defense (if one could call telling people you are into dead chicks a defense).
Yes, I felt the evidence was there beyond a reasonable doubt, and I also feel a reasonable person could have found him guilty but I did not sit on the jury so my vote counts zero.
Anonymous, I still can't see him being acquitted of murder. Manslaughter might be the highest thing he's been convicted of but I cannot see him walking on that murder charge. It WAS 10-2 after all.
Can't they charge him with defiling a dead body, or corpse abuse or some sick crime he's trying to cop to in lieu of murder? SOmething that would make him a sex criminal and keep him under the watchful eye of the state?
Post a Comment