My Innate Curiosity

I posted this question or one similar to it on The Confluence blog.

Hypothetical situation:

You are a juror in a murder trial.
You have been instructed to not discuss the case in any way, shape or form.
You have located my forum posts, blog posts and comments on the 'net.
Would any of the opinions I've offered or questions I've posed have a genuine effect on your ultimate decision as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant?
Or would you rely on the evidence as presented by the prosecution and the defense?

As I posted elsewhere, that's not a difficult question for me.
I could read opinions, theories and comments all day long. It comes down to the evidence.
No jury decision is minor to either side.
And most of all its not trivial to the defendant.
We all have the right to be judged on the weight of the evidence.

Just a question that ran through my head this afternoon.
The impact of the true electronic age is unknown right now. What it may lead to in the way we live our lives in the future has yet to be seen.
I thought today about the Roseboro murder trial and the petition for a hearing filed by the defense.
I believe I remember a television interview with "the" juror in question, I believe his name is Nick?
At the time I saw the interview, I was unaware as I believe most people were, that there was any question of juror misconduct on his part regarding Facebook postings and responses.
I was impressed that a young man could be so forthcoming and frank in stating the reason or basis for his decision. He seemed clear and level headed. He left a good impression on me and several others that spoke to me about it.
He impressed me as an intelligent young man.
Once the brouhaha started over the Facebook postings I really didn't see the problem as that influential.
In a way, he's already testified as to his thought process in his decision in the verdict.
I hope the DA and the defense have pulled that interview and have watched it again and again.
I never got the impression that the young man in the interview made his decision based on anything but the evidence, no matter what was posted on his wall on Facebook.
What do you think?