Yes, in a riveting development in the George Zimmerman trial, the jury has ordered dinner (!). But what will what they ordered to eat say about which way they're leaning: towards conviction or acquittal? If they order meat, it may indicate a thirst for blood, which might mean an intention to convict; on the other hand, if they order vegetarian stuff, it may mean they are less willing to convict. Stand by for more riveting updates on the jury's food, and what it means for the outcome of the trial!
But why isn't CNN ordering food from the same place the jury is getting their food, ordering one of everything on the menu? Then they could have their experts go down a long table of the different dishes, telling us what it means for the trial if they ordered each one. Then the experts could taste each one and say whether they feel more inclined to convict or acquit based upon how it tastes and the texture, etc. They're almost being that silly with killing time here and there, so why not go all the way?
