[neverhillorat]

The truth may be some where in between what each side says, but, it`s tough to discount what the jury decided. It isn`t like OJ where the jury closed their eyes and voted the way the did because of race. And it isn`t like the Duke case because competent attorneys can stop a nutty prosecutor. This case is going to be appealed and, lets see what happens there.

[art_rocks]

I made reference to the Duke case because the prosecutor has claimed/sworn certain things to be true which we now know are false.

Juries have been wrong before especially if all the evidence is not presented. Don't know what instructions and evidence the jury was given. Like I said. Too many unanswered questions and conflicting statements from both sides.

I sat on a jury and I know due to pre trial agreements there was evidence we didn't see. There was just something missing from the defendants story. He killed his wife but it appears that they were fighting. I don't believe he meant to do it. He put his wife in a choke hold and she died. He tried to make it appear an intruder killed her. I think if he had called the police right then and there he could have gotten off as self defense.

[antisocial]

"It isn`t like OJ where the jury closed their eyes and voted the way the did because of race. "

You've got to be kidding right? Have you ever been to El Paso? The border patrol are about as popular there as Adolph Hitler is in Israel. El Paso is about 90% hispanic and there is no way of knowing how many of them are illegal or children of illegals. The jury was probably very hostile to the border patrol before ANY evidence was heard.