That wouldn’t be an acquittal, it would be a hung jury. A hung jury results in a mistrial, and the person can be tried again.

Eh? Not clear what your point is, here. Yes, some idiots will vote to convict for no good reason. All it takes is one strong person to say, “Fuck off, not convicting”. And that’s more common than people realize, it’s why so many cops get off even when there is a less specious case against them… Someone may damned sure think the cop likely did something wrong… but can’t say for certain they did, hence, acquittal.

======

and:

======

}}} There was a case here where a guy made a bungee cord and jumped off an overpass. The bungee was too long. The medical examiner just said he died of severe trauma to the upper body. That sure doesn’t give you any idea of what actually killed him.

Hey, it’s obvious what actually killed him. The same thing that killed Floyd:
Abysmal stupidity.
😀

Indeed. As I’ve noted elsewhere on the blog, Google openly censors certain sites (i.e., search for a direct headline, and Google doesn’t share it, if it’s ‘media non grata’, such as Red State.)

Two noticed examples (bold is search term to compare):

stop it already, he’s not so smart
A piece from American Thinker, about Obama.

and
jake tapper fact checks jake tapper
A Red State piece, about how Jake Tapper openly lied after the Trump-Biden debate… in Tapper’s own words from Twitter.

Google refuses to provide either piece. DDG provides them as first or second entry.

DDG is my default search engine, now.

Partisan beliefs don’t matter, here. GOOGLE IS CENSORING INFORMATION.

Based on what I know of the case, your post and replies to commenters here are very likely a realistic prediction of how the prosecution will present the case and the hurdles the defense will have to get over. I appreciate your effort to unbiasedly consider the facts. In all sincerity you would have been a very good reporter. It is a shame there are not more actual reporters with your skill and ethics.

And yet the opinions of a medical examiner are certainly considered relevant in a trial.

Yes, I know. As I said, I believe he died of an overdose. But the lung evidence did not cause the pathologist to say he died of an overdose. The prosecution will argue that he did not, and I have little doubt they will find someone to say the lung evidence does not mean he died of an overdose. For example, I have read that lungs can fill with fluid as a result of CPR or certain kinds of heart problems.

It’s not whether the drugs were taking effect, it’s about the timing of when they would have killed him or whether they would have killed him that is in question. IMHO I think he died of an overdose, but I’m reporting the way I think the arguments will go in court. I also think it highly likely the jury members are compromised because of propaganda plus fear of riots.

However, I would have thought the same to have been true of the Zimmerman jury and the grand jury in the Ferguson case. And yet that’s not what happened.