Right after the verdict was read I said, “watch, a juror will come out and say we believe she was guilty but the evidence just wasn’t there...”. I knew it would be said and I knew it would piss me off. Here’s the problem with that “excuse”.
When a juror begins a trial they are to have a presumption of innocence for the defendant. After the State finishes their case, a juror, as in this case, then concludes the person is guilty. Then the defense comes in and presents their case. After the defense is finished and closing arguments are completed, a juror (jury) still believes a person is guilty, the defense did not provide reasonable doubt at a level sufficient to acquit the defendant.
Hearing jurors say we know a defendant is guilty then setting them free is nothing but a cop-out enlisted in hopes if gaining some sort of sympathy for refusing to do their job. It may help them sleep at night but, in cases like this one, the public will sit up at night wondering when and if this “guilty but acquitted” defendant will murder again.
So, how many years has Casey put in already and how many more will she spend? My assumption is she will do one more year and has served 3 years? Someone told me that with good behavior she will not have to serve anymore time?? How does this work??
The good thing is, with such an angry public, I don’t believe Casey will be having a “beautiful life”.
Wouldn’t trade places with her, she will be ultimately punished by public disdain and ostracized.
I'm waiting for the first one of these Einstein's to say "I don't know what happened, I wasn't there."
This is not how the judicial system works:
” When a juror begins a trial they are to have a presumption of innocence for the defendant. After the State finishes their case, a juror, as in this case, then concludes the person is guilty. Then the defense comes in and presents their case. After the defense is finished and closing arguments are completed, a juror (jury) still believes a person is guilty, the defense did not provide reasonable doubt at a level sufficient to acquit the defendant.”
It is up to the PROSECUTION to prove their case...ALL THE DEFENSE HAS TO DO IS TO PRESENT SOME REASONABLE DOUBT.
The defense doesn’t have to PROVE anything.