The jury is poisoned? The jury made a statement as she entered the courthouse to weigh in

As the jury discussed during the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse – the 18-year-old man facing multiple charges in connection with the 2020 shooting death of three men during a riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin in 2020 – continued, News coverage of the case continued to dominate the media headlines.

This makes many people wonder, why is the jury in this case not isolated?

Those questions became more prominent after a report Thursday indicated that at least one juror may have watched media coverage of the trial.

Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs, a reporter for New York Times currently includes testing from Kenosha, one of the jurors reported that “the media coverage is insane.”

It is possible that the jurors were referring to media coverage outside the court, although the Bogel-Burroughs report gives no indication as to whether this is the case.

The former seems to be more likely, like @AndrewCMcCarthyThe hunch that the media coverage might frighten jurors about the acquittal seemed justifiable.

“Media coverage is insane”: What will happen first to Rittenhouse – the jury is wrong or hanged?https://t.co/bTEyjEBAcN pic.twitter.com/2HNA2QXoc0

– Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) November 19, 2021

Did a juror just admit she followed the media coverage of the case? pic.twitter.com/5zIt5eeavw

– Jack Po-So-Bik (@JackPosobiec) November 19, 2021

Even so, it appears that the jury’s written instructions in this case do not forbid the jury from viewing media coverage.

Instead, it just suggests that jurors should ignore any opinions they hear.

Instructions for the Jury: S… via Western Magazine

“You will not be swayed by empathy, prejudice, passion or political convictions. You will disregard any opinion that you may have regarding what you believe to be my opinion of the guilt or innocence of the defendant,” Judge Bruce Schroeder’s instructions for jury read.

“You will disregard the statements or opinions of any other person or social media or website. You won’t care about anyone’s opinion, not even the President of the United States or the President before him.”

Experts disagree on whether separating the juries would have any effect on their verdict.

John Pierce, attorney for Pierce Law who represents Rittenhouse, said Fox News He doesn’t believe it’s any good.

“However… if there is a conviction and it can be shown that there is an undue influence from some sort of warrior of justice… that could be the moral basis from an appeal or a motion. ​habeas then,” Pierce said.

By contrast, legal analyst Trace A. Pearson told Fox News that failure to settle a jury in a high-profile case like the Rittenhouse may lead to external sources affecting the results.

“This mostly prevents the influence of outside sources of information,” says Pearson.

“The judge is instructed by the judge to consider only the evidence and not to consider the information gleaned from news reports and conversations, which they should not have had, with their family and friends.”