Billiejeens
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2019
- 35,183
- 23,222
There is precedent in which the SCOTUS said that jurors much ALL agree on the specific violation (I.e., underlying crime) when there is a series of violations. IOW, you cannot have 4 jurors agree on one violation, four others on another, and four others on yet another - and then consider that quakifies as unanimous.
ALL 12 must agree on a SPECIFIC crime.
![]()
There were so many reversable errors in this case it is almost as if the judge was just trying to temporarily appease idiots like Berg.
Wait!