weapon. breaking details in just a moment. but first, another fox news alert. federal jury finding former hillary clinton campaign lawyer michael sussmann not guilty of lying to the fbi. critics question how fair the jury could have been with several clinton donors on board. let s bring in jonathan turley, constitutional law attorney and fox news contributor. i m sorry, did i i call you jonathan turley or jonathan attorney. wasn t sure there. jonathan: either one works. john: you wrote about the make-up on the jury. i take it you are not surprised by the verdict. jonathan: no, a number of us indicated you could not have a more favorable jury composition. it s hard to argue against that. three clinton donors, a.o.c. donor, at least one juror that seemed to struggle with the question of impartiality, and a
her, seems like family. i feel like the tears plus christmas are going to help her. that s what i think. what do you think? i agree. i think the jury composition is key here. i believe the manslaughter two should be a slam dunk for this jury. the question is whether a reasonable officer would have mistaken a gun for a taser and then use it to kill a person who she stopped for a traffic infraction. that s not a hard question. so if some jurors are struggling, it may be based more on their sympathy for this officer. maybe her tears on the stand were like the tears of kyle rittenhouse moved his jurors. i hope some of these jurors have the same sympathy for the victim, daunte wright. we ll see. let s go to maxwell. are you surprised that the jury is still out and it s not a quick everybody herd about
video frame by frame. this is a very different jury composition. the idea here is they re potentially looking for self-defense. the defendant, travis, testified that for the first time, he added facts before the jury that arbery was trying to grab his gun and that arbery struck him with the gun. these are issues the jury needs to decide. i think the fact that they listened to the 911 call was really key here, because the idea is that, you know, greg mcmichael said they said what s the emergency. he said a black man is running down the street. that s what really this case is all about. i think the jurors were trying to listen to see whether there was any mention made of we re trying to effect a citizen s arrest. remember, jim, you can t get to self-defense, that analysis unless you establish a valid citizen s arrest. in terms of that citizen s arrest, this was the point a point of convention as jim
focus much more on race. i think as you say, looking at an 11-1 jury, the prosecutor decided not to emphasis that strain even though it seems really part of what was going on. but this national controversy is going to continue with a whole other trial. david, it was interesting to see what the judge let in and let out, right? they couldn t talk about some of the words that were used by these defendants after shooting mr. arbery. the prosecution, however, i think at the end there was able to weave this issue in. not, you know, in your face, but very clear, david. jose, that s correct. and i think this goes back to the question you were asking me earlier, and that is the jury composition. how do you appeal to that? how many of that impact the
of the jurors was already leaving. he said it was due to a medical issue. it is not the single african-american juror. instead, it s a white female and she will be replaced by another white female who is alternate number one. but it means even before we get to the most difficult part of this trial, they have already lost one alternate and have three left, and can t afford to lose many more. christine and laura. martin, thank you for that. let s bring in jennifer rodgers, our legal analyst and former federal prosecutor. jennifer, good morning. with everything martin just laid out there, this is so fraught, issues of racism front and center. so many trials here. what do you look for as this trial actually gets underway, especially with the jury composition here? well, you know, we ll just have to take it day by day and see how it develops. i m hoping that these evidentiary issues that come up, like martin was just speaking about, with whether the