[Southflanknorthpawsis]

No one could convince me to vote guilty now, no matter how strongly they felt about it, because I have reasonable doubt.

I couldn't be persuaded to vote guilty either. I would have felt that way regardless. BUT, if I been told by Dusek that I better reconsider my judgment if the majority disagreed, I wouldn't budge for anything.

That was the most insulting, condescending thing for him to do. I was appalled.

[small_l_libertarian]

He's sick. Seriously, I think that to lie, bend the truth, twist (innocent) statements, twist the words of the law (jury instructions) just to get a win (especially if your winning means a man is going to die) is the very definition of evil. Or wicked. Isn't that bearing false witness or something? It's just something I can't even comprehend.

I mean, if you're so sure you have the right guy, don't you have some actual EVIDENCE you could present instead of putting on a disgusting sideshow for the jury? If you're so sure of your facts, why do you have to misrepresent to the jury what they're supposed to do in the jury room?

I completely agree - if he told me to get off the fence and join the mob, I'd tell him to bite me. He'd never get any cooperation from me, no way, no how.