Jenna Pawlowski was a strong witness for the prosecution. An alert juror would conclude that she was apparently truthful, and conclude that the defendant's lawyer is simply doing his job by trying to create doubt about anything and everything. The factual conclusion is that the defendant had access to a firearm and the opportunity and motivation to use it to kill her husband.
Gary was already missing so it is a stretch by the defense that Chris was the one to shoot G whether Chris slept with Jenna that night or not. I don’t know how the jury will see it but i think if Jenna and Scott's story about the revolver were exactly the same it would be much more suspicious. That would sound much more like they conjured it up together. The fact that she doesn't know guns and can't remember it exactly because she has little gun knowledge makes both of their stories more credible. If she called and said she was shown a snub nose 38 special that would be suspicious considering her lack of gun knowledge.
You said that the best they were going to be able to do is show that it's *likely* that she committed the murder, and that likely wasn't good enough to convict. Do you really think that it wouldn't be, for a deeply unattractive defendant? In my eyes, the defense is going with the best weapon they have, but that they're still taking quite a gamble by assuming that the jury will actually adhere strictly to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for a defendant they're basically inclined to believe did it, even if their doubts are plenty reasonable. So I suppose what I'm asking you is: in your experience, are juries really good about obeying jury instructions in general and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in particular, when dealing with a defendant whom their gut feelings say is a killer?
Jenna Pawlowski was a strong witness for the prosecution. An alert juror would conclude that she was apparently truthful, and conclude that the defendant's lawyer is simply doing his job by trying to create doubt about anything and everything. The factual conclusion is that the defendant had access to a firearm and the opportunity and motivation to use it to kill her husband.
Gary was already missing so it is a stretch by the defense that Chris was the one to shoot G whether Chris slept with Jenna that night or not. I don’t know how the jury will see it but i think if Jenna and Scott's story about the revolver were exactly the same it would be much more suspicious. That would sound much more like they conjured it up together. The fact that she doesn't know guns and can't remember it exactly because she has little gun knowledge makes both of their stories more credible. If she called and said she was shown a snub nose 38 special that would be suspicious considering her lack of gun knowledge.
You said that the best they were going to be able to do is show that it's *likely* that she committed the murder, and that likely wasn't good enough to convict. Do you really think that it wouldn't be, for a deeply unattractive defendant? In my eyes, the defense is going with the best weapon they have, but that they're still taking quite a gamble by assuming that the jury will actually adhere strictly to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for a defendant they're basically inclined to believe did it, even if their doubts are plenty reasonable.
So I suppose what I'm asking you is: in your experience, are juries really good about obeying jury instructions in general and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in particular, when dealing with a defendant whom their gut feelings say is a killer?
We can only trust that jurors follow their oaths. Once we can't trust that, we can't trust that there will be justice.
They don't share children I don't think
Jenna doesn’t have any kids with Chris.
Thanks for sharing that.