re: #48 lawhawk

As a juror you are only supposed to be considering the evidence put before you - and if this isn’t part of that evidence, then it shouldn’t come into play.

It’s how someone standing outside the deliberation room can say that the trial should go one way, but jurors might see things completely differently based on the evidence that is admissible and considered.

So, standing outside the jury, I could say that this looks real bad and undermines his credibility to a damaging degree, but if I were a juror, I’d have to consider only the evidence put before me, even if it means not considering this bit about the bail.

Couldn’t the prosecution introduce this as part of their argument, that he lied to the court in matters directly related to the case?