No, the judge is not going to do that. And the prosecution is not going to want another bite of this rotten apple. This woman is going become obscenely rich from this, but she is a vile person and her evil will catch up with her eventually.
Face it, this was just a stupid jury. It's really that simple. There are a lot of people that think the prosecution's burden is higher than it is supposed to be. Too many people watch CSI and Criminal Minds and have a distorted view of forensics and what trials typical look like. Too many people fail to understand that circumstantial cases are not unusual at all. You even read some of that sentiment here with the "well I wasn't 100% certain so she shouldn't be convicted" nonsense. Far too many people do not understand the prosecution's burden is reasonable doubt, not 100% certainty of guilt.
I don’t think people understand reasonable doubt. They now think the prosecution has to remove any and all doubt.
DNA is great, but now people seem to want DNA proof in every case.