I’m curious. What do you think the jury was punishing the prosecution FOR? The sequestering? Condescending tone?
You write: “I can’t wrap my mind around such stupidity but vengeance—”.
I mean, it’s harder for me to wrap my mind around the concept that a jury would choose to punish sequestering or tone, as opposed to punishing a mother for murdering her own child.
And here’s why it’s easy for me to believe the stupidity:
The defense successfully cast a small amount of doubt on several elements of the prosecution case.
The mistake that I believe the jurors made, while it shows ignorance, is actually a very common mistake that otherwise intelligent people OFTEN make.
It is the mistake of not recognizing that a chain of unlikely events rapidly becomes not simply unlikely, but realistically impossible, i.e. only possible in imagination and theory.
They looked like bullies. That’s why. Don’t get me wrong. The state put on an excellent case; but juries mostly go by emotions.
What do you think the jury was punishing the prosecution FOR?
***************************************
Evidence,like the chloroform searches.
The state never came back and cleaned up that mess... 84 vs 1 search— even after they had made a huge deal of it with witnesses.
Long sidebars etc during the defense case, ones where whole days were missed.
Ashton laughing and being a bit of a smart azz.
Several things but mostly for not clearing up evidence, such as the chloroform.
I could drop the chloro and still find her guilty, others maybe just pitched the whole case over it?