Nope. We never heard when her last drink was which makes all the difference in their calculation.
We don't know what the FBI is looking into.
Nope.
And that's all they proved is that she had alcohol in her system at 9am.
Not yet. I believe they are waiting for everyone to return to the court room.
www.wcvb.com
They've had enough time and forcing them back there without reading the Tuey-Rodriguez charge is appalling. So now the jury sits back there deadlocked until 3:30 and she finally reads it to them and they have to come back on Monday. Don't think that would force anyone to reconsider their decision rather dig their heels in more, imo.
malegislature.gov
No. What happens with the deliberating jurors is sacrosanct. The alternate can take a deliberating jurors position only if there is cause to dismiss her/him.
Agreed.They've had enough time and forcing them back there without reading the Tuey-Rodriguez charge is appalling. So now the jury sits back there deadlocked until 3:30 and she finally reads it to them and they have to come back on Monday. Don't think that would force anyone to reconsider their decision rather dig their heels in more, imo.
Here's a link to the CW of MA Tuey-Rodriguez instruction.
page 2
"In order to make a decision more attainable, the law always imposes the burden of proof on one side or the other. In this criminal case, the burden of proof is on the Commonwealth to establish every part of it, every essential element, beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are left in doubt as to any essential element, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt, and must be acquitted."
Also,
General Law - Part III, Title II, Chapter 234A, Section 68C
Section 68C: Failure of jury to agree
Section 68C. If a jury, after due and thorough deliberation, returns to court without having agreed on a verdict, the court may state anew the evidence or any part of the evidence, explain to them anew the law applicable to the case and send them out for further deliberation; but if they return a second time without having agreed on a verdict, they shall not be sent out again without their own consent, unless they ask from the court some further explanation of the law.
I also didn't care for her little speech about how it really didn't matter what either side really wanted because it was to to her and her alone to make the decision. She could have not been so condescending when she said it and could have easily been much more tactful in her tone while saying it. I don't care what side you're on, that should have offended both sides. It sounded like a teen aged drama queen with a superiority complex.
I do not understand why she didn't give this, either. If it was getting testy in there before, not mentioning that and sending them back could really fire it up. I do think they needed to go at least through today but I do not understand why she didn't do that minimal thing.They've had enough time and forcing them back there without reading the Tuey-Rodriguez charge is appalling. So now the jury sits back there deadlocked until 3:30 and she finally reads it to them and they have to come back on Monday. Don't think that would force anyone to reconsider their decision rather dig their heels in more, imo.
Here's a link to the CW of MA Tuey-Rodriguez instruction.
page 2
"In order to make a decision more attainable, the law always imposes the burden of proof on one side or the other. In this criminal case, the burden of proof is on the Commonwealth to establish every part of it, every essential element, beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are left in doubt as to any essential element, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt, and must be acquitted."
Also,
General Law - Part III, Title II, Chapter 234A, Section 68C
Section 68C: Failure of jury to agree
Section 68C. If a jury, after due and thorough deliberation, returns to court without having agreed on a verdict, the court may state anew the evidence or any part of the evidence, explain to them anew the law applicable to the case and send them out for further deliberation; but if they return a second time without having agreed on a verdict, they shall not be sent out again without their own consent, unless they ask from the court some further explanation of the law.
Nope. I heard it as it happened.