https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/b ... onddegree/

Prosecutor bases case of 2nd degree murder on what somebody could have done and what might have happened rather than what was legal, because gun. 10 didn't buy what the Prosecutor was shoveling but 2 did. One took some convincing and the hold out wanted to consider a basis they were specifically were told not to consider in making a decision.

If you read the comments the OP adds additional information on the process of convincing the 2 hold outs.

I also found it interesting that in the comments people bringing up you can't use someone's past to convict them in an incident, yet they were speaking of the person who was killed and not on trial. I did think it was important to know the deceased would become belligerent and violent when drunk because it had a direct affect on the decision if it was reasonable for the defendant to fear for his life or great bodily harm due to the probable actions of the deceased.

I'm not surprised. After having served on a couple of juries and hearing stories from my mom and others, I'm convinced that a lot of jurors seem to get confused or just think that a criminal defendant must be guilty of something. Working where I do, it's always weird to see defendants get acquitted of underlying crimes, like robbery, but get convicted of using a firearm to commit a felony (i.e., the robbery). Which at least here is a perfectly fine result. In Michigan, the defendant can get in evidence of murder victim's past tendency for violence, when self-defense is involved. So I'm not sure about that one. But it's sausage. You don't want to watch the jurors make it. lol