Weird News

mean that marching a dog in (or even a child) isn't likely in these two cases to change opinions because they are so firmly baked in. The judge is doing this to avoid reversible error on appeal, but the fact is that the odds are good that short of the worst prosecutor case presented ever, that the jury had decision made before the dog ever entered the deliberation room.

I agree that no all can ignore what is not in evidence, but, I don't think that is the actual issue here. Rather pro-animal or pro-child bias that is impossible to remove is going to be present. Still, I don't think it would affect a SOLID case that actually proves the person to have been falsely charged.