Replies

The jury was tampered with, when eleven says guilty, one says not guilty. Money or intimidation bought that twelfth one.
Check his bank account in six months.

Like it or not, its exactly the way civilian juries are supposed to work. No juror has to convict if they don't want to, period. This is why military traials are the way to go with enemy combatants.

THOMAS JEFFERSON (1789): I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

JOHN ADAMS (1771): It's not only ....(the juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge's instruction...."if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."

U.S. vs. DOUGHERTY (1972) [D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals]: The jury has...."unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge."

It wasn't a hung jury, the guy was acquitted. That requires a unanimous verdict. Stories about a lone holdout must have been about him not wanting to acquit while the majority did.

It would be the other eleven who would have had to have been bribed.