Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Six jurors in almost sixteen hours of deliberation what led to the unanimous decision of not guilty for -- -- -- Doctor -- -- joins us.
Doctor thanks a lot for joining us.
What exactly morning led to this verdict were you surprised when you sought -- last night at ten -- I have to tell you I wasn't surprised at all I I quite frankly.
Was a little surprised -- didn't come earlier although when they sent the question out.
What did surprise me is that they didn't follow up given the fact that the judge which I think made the -- call not giving them much explanation about manslaughter.
Does -- first six let us -- and negotiation.
Like a jury deliberation takes place is it always.
They the extrovert in the room -- the most vocal sort of loud mouth that gets her way.
I mean how does the persuasion happened in there.
Well -- and you hit your -- asking a great question and narrow things to states that allow only six jurors.
And one of the problems with us is that if you look at the scientific literature about how six people make decisions my hunch is your questions might come from your own experience.
That when you only have six people a lot of times if you have somebody who's really opinion -- -- get in there and really steered the deliberations.
It sounds like based on the tea leaves here again I'm I'm speculating a little bad.
But you know they -- pretty deliberate they deliberated for a long time I think this is a hard working jury I think they really tried to work with the jury instructions and look at all of the facts and I heard somebody use the term mosaic this morning.
And try to put those together to come to their decision so I'm not convinced there was not a bully or a strong personality on this jury because they reached a decision and they did so in that and a fairly good amount of time.
So the longer a deliberation goes does that suggest.
-- guilty or not guilty outcome.
I don't think you can say that Tucker I think with six people we don't know enough.
You know when I've been both as an attorney and as a psychologist when I've worked with juries.
That's mostly been a larger pool of twelfth and bury you start to say what people grab -- to -- so interesting when you have twelve and the length becomes an issue.
With six I think it's a little more manageable you know yesterday.
As it was dragging on I have to say I was thinking that.
In fact the defense would be more up sat.
The fact that they asked for clarification on manslaughter they didn't just dismiss -- out of hand they really probably had to spend some time on manslaughter.
And I was saying yesterday actually before -- -- came down that I thought that they get rid of the second degree from pretty quickly and then have to spend some time in the manslaughter in part because that cuts that instruction was very confusing.
You know you're you're actually -- it sounds like again reading the tea leaves we can only.
Go by what they asked for that they've probably started with the judge's instructions of second degree murder.
They ruled that out they -- wanted clarity about manslaughter.
They deliberated for a big chunk of -- about manslaughter and -- I guess obviously apparently ruled that out and then they had to deliberate still about whether this was a full acquittal.
I think that's right Alex and I also think that probably when they were discussing.
Again tea leaves when they were discussing the second degree charge.
They probably got rid of the self defense and once you got rid of the self defense and the second degree.
-- were left with manslaughter and they were trying to work through my hunch is what negligence -- and also be excusable homicide part of that instruction.
And they went through that my hunch is very methodically through dinner they asked the question right before dinner they kept discussing the case.
And then they felt they could render a decision.
-- forest joining us from scenic up.
They want you thanks so much great to talk to --
Filter by section