@bclintonk What that juror said is pretty close to what I thought might have happened as explained in a previous post.
Technological evidence like dash cam and DNA is a blessing and a curse if you’re a prosecutor. Before there was such a thing as video evidence, juries were forced to make decisions based on the kind of things you’re talking about (where an item was located, who said what at what time, and other circumstances). Now that it is common to have video evidence, juries expect to see it and hesitate to convict without it. The same is true of DNA evidence, although DNA wasn’t at issue here. Before DNA existed, juries managed to convict plenty of people beyond a reasonable doubt. But now that DNA evidence is common, juries expect it and often won’t convict without it.