Sorry.. just not the case.. most juries really look at the evidence.. I have LOST some cases.. not because the jury didn't think the guy was guilty.. but because the jury just did not think "The State" presented a strong enough case... Juries are a LOT tougher on the prosecution (and RIGHTLY so) than most people think.... PROBABLE CAUSE <-- required for an arrest -- is a FAR CRY from BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT <--- required for CONVICTION... again if I was in Mr. Craigs sitution....
I would assure the arresting officer that his "probable cause" was VALID... this let's the officer know that you are NOT questioning his integrity and judgement... and that he was doing his job just a little too aggressively.. and as such misinterpreted my actions.. had he done this even if he WAS guilty. the PUBLIC would likely be sympathetic......
I would assure the arresting officer that his "probable cause" was VALID...
And many officers would immediately take this as an admission of guilt and press even harder. There are times when a suspect is subjected to intense interrogation for several hours (I call this “being grilled”). While it is borderline unconstitutional, it still happens. But that’s OK, if the “cop’s instinct” shows the suspect guilty.
Some juries do take their responsibility seriously. Others don’t By the tone of many posters here on this thread, the officer’s accusation is all that is needed for a guilty verdict.