Replies

I say use this situation to our advantage.

Most of the people who are so mad about this verdict, are mad at the jury. We need to use this anger to educate!

When your non-political, or feel good liberal friend/relative comments on how the jury didn't use common sense, reply “Now you know how I feel when it comes to politics.” We keep seeing the electorate (jury) elect corrupt politician after corrupt politician. The electorate seems to not understand they have a responsibility to know both sides of every argument, and a duty to follow the Constitution. Of course, if they don't agree, make them a challenge. I will tell you, without snark, why most voted for Barak Obama, you tell me, without snark, why I voted for Sarah Palin. They won't be able to do it.

Unfortunately most people couldn't care less about the constitution if the jury doesn't tell them what they want to hear.

Anthony could have been caught in the act of murdering the child and the jury could still find her innocent if they so desired.

JOHN ADAMS (1771): It's not only ....(the juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge's instruction...."if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."

U.S. vs. DOUGHERTY (1972) [D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals]: The jury has...."unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge."