Of course, the criminal justice system can always be thrown off-kilter by one idiot jurist, and there was one who took the phrase, "reasonable doubt," to mean acceptance of the principles of solipsism, hence wouldn't convict on 10 of 18 counts. As a side-note, in civil proceedings, the standard is "preponderance of evidence," which doesn't allow that kind of solipsism, and put Trump in a weaker position with respect to Trump University, but that's another matter. Anyway, the criminal justice system is always susceptible to randomness because juries can do weird things. Had the one odd jurist taken his solipsism to the logical extreme, there would have been a hung jury, and we'd be in a different position right now. Mueller would be fired, the investigation would be shut down, and, well... Like I said, juries can do weird things.
Still, be impressed by Paula Duncan.
But don't over-interpret what she did. She didn't vote to convict Trump, and no Trump-supporter would ever turn on him. Ever. No matter what the evidence is. Time for a quick refresher on John Zaller. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. People formulate their responses to questions based on the balance of considerations in their heads at the time, but they will also selectively reject messages inconsistent with the balance of considerations they hold. So, a Trumpist will generally give you a pro-Trump response to a survey question. Whatever question you ask, the Trumpist will give you the most pro-Trump response. However, the same balance of considerations that prompts this behavior will lead the Trumpist to accept pro-Trump messages and reject anti-Trump messages, and the effect is that Trumpists just keep digging in further rather than responding to reality.
Paula Duncan? She's a MAGA-hat-wearing Trumpist who thinks Mueller is conducting a "WITCH HUNT!!!" and all the other crap Trump says. So, how did she vote to convict? A big part of it was the separation of Manafort's charges from Trump. She managed to tell herself that she wasn't doing anything against Trump because Manafort's charges related to his behavior separately from his actions as chair of Trump's campaign (technically, true!). Without that, it would have been really hard for a Trumpist like Duncan to vote to convict because all of those Zaller-forces in her head would have pushed her toward acquittal. But, if the charges aren't directly about Trump, she can separate it in her head, and vote to convict.
That's still really hard, though, and a new book worth reading is Taming Intuition by Kevin Arceneaux and Ryan Vander Wielen. Basic point: some people have a preference for "cognition" rather than simply "affect," and those people will engage in reflection to check their cognitive biases, rather than simply doing the mindless Zaller thing. Paula Duncan appears to have gone through the effort to check her cognitive biases. Take note, but don't expect Trumpists to do that when it comes to Trump himself.
