Prosecutor Stone said in Mandi's closing argument "Use your common sense." If I were the defense, I would have said "Objection, not in evidence." The entire case law and rules of evidence are designed specifically to prevent jurors from using their common sense. Evidence is only allowed which is consistent with a specific preconceived, articulated narrative. You cannot guess what happened, beyond what the lawyers tell you happened, because the rules of evidence are not designed help you come to third conclusions not promoted by prosecution or defense. It was impossible, based on the evidence allowed, for the jurors to ever guess Mandi's true motive for being at Mulrenin's apartment. Strippers are chimneys when it comes to smoking weed. For the jurors, it was cash or nothing. I lived in Miami before George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. I saw black teenagers from North Miami going around punching strangers in the face. It was a popular thing in a certain demographic. I even heard a black teenager punch a toddler in the face in the dark, and then explain to his parents the logic of why he did it. I heard bone hit bone, tot crying, parents objecting, and a black teenager explaining. If I were to use my "common sense" that is what I would say Trayvon Martin did to George Zimmerman. But Judge Nelson blocked the defense from mentioning Trayvon’s reputation for punching people. And "the knockout game" was not in the national news yet, a Sanford jury would not have heard of it. So Judge Nelson deprived the jury of the opportunity to use common sense. But Mandi's jury was instructed by prosecutor Stone to use common sense, even though they knew less about Mandi and Mulrenin than Sanford jurors know about North Miami. Because Mandi's prosecutor knew the specifics of the evidence and testimony before the jury did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. According to Judge Recksiedler, the defense is not allowed to question witnesses on general information, or present general evidence which might be relevant to understanding what happened. They can only present true facts and items even in the vicinity of the crime, if they can articulate to the judge exactly how this information fits into the specific defense narrative of exactly what happened. This presumes every defendant can have an all-knowing attorney who is smarter than the defendant and the judge and every juror. The prosecution was not limited in this way. The prosecution was allowed to present ribs hollowed out from organ donation, an address on paper with no known criminal use, and a receipt for an engagement ring, that in no way contributed to any narrative that Mandi planned or was a principal in a robbery, or that Mulrenin was dead. We know he is dead. Mulrenin's bed drawer was filled with viagra - blister packages, boxes, loose and broken pills - in a way that could be fairly characterized as a reckless and careless. His bedroom had blackout curtains. He had antibiotic eye drops. He punched the elevator button 8 times after the door was already closing, he rubbed his eyes, and he almost bumped into a wall on his way to the curb. It may be that neither the female defendant, nor her female attorney, nor the female judge, had any idea that viagra can caused blurred vision, tunnel vision, sensitivity to light, and retina damage. So they cannot articulate that narrative, to show evidence of it to the jury. But there could be five men on the jury who all have experience with exactly those symptoms, and who in their "common sense" believe vision problems from excessive viagra coud have contributed to Mulrenin going over the balcony. Recksiedler would not have admitted any theory that Mulrenin went over the balcony because of viagra. The prosecution would have objected as "not in evidence." This is the same prosecution that said Mulrenin jumped from the fifth floor because he saw there was some soft grass and he was about to be shot, when no such thing was in evidence. There cannot be any rational reason to jump to your certain death from the fifth floor. Certainly not soft grass. So any medical theory, every drug, any idea should have been admitted, ahead of the argument which cannot be supported by anything in evidence, that jumping was a rational conscious reaction to something Scott Love or Mandi Jackson did. Did he fall because he was blind, or did he jump from five floors because there was soft grass? Recksiedler only wanted evidence to support one of those theories. It is assumed jurors will bring some knowledge with them, such as how an elevator works. What about knowledge that strippers like weed, to a sufficient level to explain Mandi's motive for being in Mulrenin's apartment? Does a girl who went to law school know that strippers like weed? Is it possible a girl on the jury would know more about strippers and more about illegal drugs and more about prostitution, than any of the attorneys in the room who must argue about what evidence is relevant to understanding what happened? Is it possible a defense attorney could know his client is not guilty, but a juror could still discover proof of innocence which the defense attorney never even IV-43