Welcome back. It's time for a quick bit clip. The full episode will be linked in the description,

but this is the quick bit clip to keep you in the loop for everything that's happening on the

live stream channel. Let's get into it.

Since the jury came back undecided in the Karen Reed trial, it seems that numerous jurors have reached out to the attorneys in this case, both defense

and prosecution, to say, hey, we actually reached verdicts on two of the three counts.

Was anybody ever going to ask us about that?

Because we were only hung on the one count count and nobody ever asked us about it.

The defense made a motion to dismiss counts one and three because of the information from the jury.

That was kind of a Hail Mary.

I don't even think the law will allow for that after declaring of a mistrial.

However,

they also asked to be allowed to inquire into the jury, and they are making an argument that this violates double jeopardy, because it's really the only argument they can make. They can't

make an argument for new trial because she's already getting a new trial. What they want is a new

trial only on count two, because that gets rid of some of the most serious counts in this case.

The double jeopardy argument is an outside argument, but this fact scenario is incredibly unique. All of this could have been

resolved if the court had pulled the jury. The court didn't pull the jury. The defense didn't

ask to pull the jury. And now here we are with jurors who sat for what, six, seven weeks,

plus jury selection,

and said, but we actually came to verdicts,

and nobody asked us about them.

And I think that the jury instructions are confusing on this.

So I understand where there's room for confusion.

...