To: Hillary's Lovely Legs; Revelation 911
Just my opinion - The 2 previous juries were probably having a hard time convicting Scaught due to the time they were in session. This quick of a decision probably means that they have convicted him. Almost certainly the appeal will be based on the fact that the jurors kept getting fired.
Also, pinging my evil twin.
To: UsnDadof8
I agree with you about the logic would dictate a 'GUILTY' sentence, but, one has to factor in the California aspect of it. I think this trumps commen sense and logic. 'NOT GUILTY'
68 posted on
11/12/2004 11:32:01 AM PST by
mlbford2
("Never wrestle with a pig; you can't win, you just get filthy, and the pig loves it...")
To: UsnDadof8; All
I with you on this one. A verdict this fast is probably guilty of at least the 2nd degree charge. They came back awfully fast, only about 3-4 hours of actual deliberation.
To: UsnDadof8
One of the newbie jurors is a mother of FOUR. My bet is she'd vote to fry the guy (oops, wrong state for that), and would even want to watch. Guilty.
And BTW: the "cop out" verdict of 2nd degree doesn't even stand up to logic, but of course the 'no death penalty' crowd won't care.
440 posted on
11/12/2004 12:26:57 PM PST by
alancarp
(When does it cease to be "Freedom of the Press" and become outright SEDITION?)
To: UsnDadof8
I would say they have decided he's guilty. Because one of the jurors who just got the boot said he thought he wasn't guilty
To: UsnDadof8
Also, pinging my evil twin. ....thats evil arminian twin
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson