Replies

If all on the jury thought guilty..Why go over the evidence except as a way to come to a decision?This was a nightmare case for a defense lawyer.There was no defense!The important elements of the case were not disputed.He could have survived with prompt (first hour)attention to his blood loss.

Important question---what color will Mallard wear today? A soft pink, perhaps? Baby blue? Didn't her mother teach her anything? Pearls are for evening wear...

286 posted on 06/27/2003 5:59:41 AM PDT by NautiNurse (If Lawton Chiles runs for the Senate seat in 2004, we will **really** have Jurassic Park in Florida)

My response to hispanarepublicana was based on my belief in the responsibility of jurors in general. In retrospect, commenting in the middle of a thread about one of the most horrible crimes I can think of was not a prudent place to get philosophical. The time taken in the "windshield case" was long enough to have allowed for deliberation, and I applaud the verdict. Ms. Mallard, at minimum, should have as much solitary time in prison to think about what she did as the potential time she took away from her victim's life.

The three juries I was on resulted in conviction. If we had gone with the instant mood when "deliberation" began, three guilty parties would have walked. If for no other reason, deliberation is important so you don't hand the defense an appeal issue.