I worry about the fine line which separates defending a truly innocent defendant and protecting the rights of a defendant presumed innocent, but in reality guilty as sin.
The line was not so fine in this case. The problem was that they had some really stupid jurors (you only had to listen to some of the interviews to verify that), and one or two who I think wanted to have the verdict that would sell best for a book or movie. (Didn’t work out so great, tough luck.) For our jury system to work correctly, we need both intelligent (not just book learning, but the ability to reason as well) and ethical people to sit on them. A reasonable jury would have found this woman guilty.