Second this motion. I was on a jury which hung (didn't reach a verdict) because the last two hold-outs for conviction revealed
only after we'd returned the (non)-verdict that their reasoning had been (and I'm not making this up) "he looks like a criminal".
Before you get distracted by that (admitted outrage), there were a couple of other weird dynamics at play:
1) The lead cop even gave those two holdouts the squicks. I was good, and didn't google his name until after the whole trial was over, but he'd been the subject of multiple lawsuits - including wrongful death, in which he rolled up to a scene being controlled by other officers and started shooting 8 seconds after getting out of his car. No one on the jury (said they) trusted him.
2) The case was horrifically over-charged. The defendant was shady, and was probably looking for a car to break into when the cop rolled up. However, there was nothing (besides prejudice and supposition) linking him to the drugs the dog found thirty feet away, and describing the items they found in his backpack as "deadly weapons" strained credulity. There might have been something there ("carrying burglary tools"? Is that a thing?) on which I would have voted to convict, but not the case presented.
Still, it was a coin toss. The first vote was eight to four to convict, and it all could easily have gone another way.