Jury Deliberation Day 3
“If we move past the murder weapon, which I believe from day one’s debate we all agree is a damning piece of evidence that cannot be refuted, no matter how many times we go over the arguments of the defense—and if we agree to stick only with the facts that we know about the blood that was discovered in the room, then today we should talk about motive,” Harold said.
“The judge explained that motive is important because it will help prove or disprove premeditation. So I’d like to open the floor to debate. If we agree that she did it, and how she did it, can we now hash out why she did it?”
“Why?” the retired teacher said. “Because she had done it before.”
Harold held up his hands in a calm show of protest. “That’s speculation.
The prosecution created a clever slogan in their closing arguments.
But the defense objected to this reference of past wrongdoings, and the judge sustained the objection.
We were instructed to disregard that comment, and the entire line of questioning that had to do with past misconduct.
The judge was very clear that we should consider only the facts presented to us during this hearing.
One victim, one trial, nothing else from the past should come into play. ”
“How can it not influence us? She killed other people!”