The prosecution had to bend themselves into pretzels to explain away problems in their case. One example involved the dog tag evidence. The defense missed an opportunity by not arguing that the dog tag wasn’t even an official military tag, but the real issue was the fact that it was on a string instead of a chain.
During closing arguments, prosecutor Barbara Whaley told jurors that Kit wore his dog tag on a string because pilots in very hot desert environments avoid metal chains since they conduct heat. (Correction: In the video I mistakenly linked this claim to the alleged arson plan. The prosecutor actually tied it to heat conduction while flying, not to arson.)
This claim is easily disproved, yet one juror gave it credibility during deliberations. In this short excerpt from Episode Three of Framed, you’ll hear a juror attempt to persuade his fellow jurors by backing up the prosecution’s unsupported theory with a personal anecdote.
The juror’s actions are problematic for several reasons:
1. He introduced extraneous information not presented at trial. The prosecutor made the claim but offered no evidence to support it. The juror filled that gap with his own “experience,” which jurors are prohibited from doing. Courts have repeatedly held that verdicts cannot be based on “extrajudicial facts and information.”
2. His explanation was factually wrong. If every service member in hot environments feared a dog tag chain burning them, the entire military would be wearing tags on strings. They don’t.
3. His claim could not be challenged by the defense. Kit’s attorneys had no opportunity to cross‑examine this juror. Where did he hear this story? Can he name a single person who told him this? Does he have any scientific evidence that a chain in hot weather can burn skin?
This excerpt was edited for time. The full episode contains more detail on this issue, as well as other examples of this same juror displaying a lack of understanding of basic facts and evidence in the case.