Yes, I follow Andrew Weissman's commentary, too. I'm so glad he is given the airtime on MSNBC to help out with legal analysis. As to my reading *all* the transcripts.... I've afraid I misstated that level of intensity. Skimming plays a major part in how much time I devote to them.
My experience with juries has been similar to yours, altho…
Yes, I follow Andrew Weissman's commentary, too. I'm so glad he is given the airtime on MSNBC to help out with legal analysis. As to my reading *all* the transcripts.... I've afraid I misstated that level of intensity. Skimming plays a major part in how much time I devote to them.
My experience with juries has been similar to yours, although it consists of only three completed ones. Two civil trials and one criminal trial. The civil trials had little debate needed. What I took from all three was how serious everyone took the task. It's given me reason to believe that the NY jury will take the job seriously as well and not be divided by partisanship. Of course, we are talking about a totally different case and potential for strong emotions/biases over-riding that sense of responsibility to maintain strict attention to the facts of the case all the jurors I've known have.
I like your idea that there may be just enough of the Trump true believers who will reject the propaganda they have so far been willing to swallow whole and tip the balance in Biden's favor.
We are all capable of those sudden "epiphanies" that end our misconceptions and help us view reality a little more clearly.
Re Weissman, I listen to his podcast with Mary McCord. It's an hour long (with ads I can fast forward through), so I get much more analysis and more in depth than on cable news. It's called "Prosecuting Donald Trump."
Yes, I follow Andrew Weissman's commentary, too. I'm so glad he is given the airtime on MSNBC to help out with legal analysis. As to my reading *all* the transcripts.... I've afraid I misstated that level of intensity. Skimming plays a major part in how much time I devote to them.
My experience with juries has been similar to yours, although it consists of only three completed ones. Two civil trials and one criminal trial. The civil trials had little debate needed. What I took from all three was how serious everyone took the task. It's given me reason to believe that the NY jury will take the job seriously as well and not be divided by partisanship. Of course, we are talking about a totally different case and potential for strong emotions/biases over-riding that sense of responsibility to maintain strict attention to the facts of the case all the jurors I've known have.
I like your idea that there may be just enough of the Trump true believers who will reject the propaganda they have so far been willing to swallow whole and tip the balance in Biden's favor.
We are all capable of those sudden "epiphanies" that end our misconceptions and help us view reality a little more clearly.
Re Weissman, I listen to his podcast with Mary McCord. It's an hour long (with ads I can fast forward through), so I get much more analysis and more in depth than on cable news. It's called "Prosecuting Donald Trump."
I'll add that old joke about people being able to change:
How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one: but the light bulb has got to want to change.
Oh, yes, indeed. I admire and learn from both!