But, one thing that you can know for sure is that she gave the jurors something that wasn't right. From line 11 of page 134 of the transcript for November 21st:
MS. ALIZADEH: Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out. What we have discovered, and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the State of Missouri does not comply with the case law.
Ok. It only took you 66 days to tell the jurors that. Her instructions regarding said documents aren't awesome, though. From line 7 of page 135:
So the statute I gave you, if you want to fold that 1n half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law.
Am I wrong to think that she should have maybe stated the difference? If I'm wrong, a whole lot of folks are wrong too. But, this ADA doesn't seem to have clarity in her list of priorities. Let's take a look at how she handles juror questions, shall we?
Beginning on line 24 of the same page:
GRAND JUROR: So we're to disregard this.
MS. ALIZADEH: It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something 1n it that's not correct, 1gnore it totally.
GRAND JUROR: It is because of the federal?
MS. WHIRLEY: Of a Supreme Court case and we must follow Supreme Court of the United States. It is Tennessee v. Garner, not that that matters much to you.
She doesn't tell them what's not correct in the original statute, and she doesn't collect them, or instruct the jurors to get rid of the misleading information. No, this is not a person who is doing their job well.
Also, am I an idiot to think that if any juror wanted to consult the specific case law, it should have been provided to them?