Posted on 11/21/2017 5:12:29 AM PST by Elderberry
On Monday, three McLennan County residents who served on the jury for the first Twin Peaks trial expressed disappointment about not being able to reach a unanimous verdict.
Christopher Jacob Carrizal, the president of the Dallas Chapter of the Bandidos, was the first biker to go on trial for the deadly shootout that left nine dead and dozens injured outside the Waco Twin Peaks restaurant in 2015.
He was indicted on one count of directing activities of a criminal street gang and two counts of engaging in organized criminal activity.
It was the first time J.C. Crow and one man who only wanted to be known as Mr. Smith served on a jury.
"I felt in a way honored to serve my civic duty but at the same time it was a month away from work and life, regular life," Crow said.
Mr. Smith said he had concerns about serving in a high-profile case the first two days of the trial.
"Reservations about safety, security. How it would impact my daily life, as far as work and family." Smith."You hear the reputation of the motorcycle gangs and you don't know whether that is an issue when you serve in a high-profile case."
(Excerpt) Read more at kxxv.com ...
The prosecution normally starts with their best case, and it didn’t turn out too well. As I said from the very beginning there’s something rotten in Denmark!
A jury practice that needs reexamination is, first of all, why we all agree that if a single person on a jury refuses to find a defendant guilty, if the rest of the jury refuses to vote for not guilty, a mistrial should be declared.
But if it is the opposite case, that all but one of the jury want to find that they are not guilty, but one stubborn individual insists on voting for guilt, the judge should instead of declaring a mistrial, have the option to decide that “almost not guilty” is close enough to not guilty, that they, the judge, may find for acquittal.
Thus invoking double jeopardy.
This is because juries can often include someone who is determined to hurt the defendant out of personal hatred or bigotry.
Importantly, judges for the most part, do have the ability to set aside a unanimous jury verdict for guilty right now. So this is not a very radical change.
Thanks for info
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.