The behavior and demeanor of the jurors is incredible too.
When a person is picked for a jury, they are supposed to go into a trial with the presumption of innocence of the defendant.
Both sides present their case, rebuttal and closing statements, at that point most people have made up their minds or are very close to it.
To hear these jurors say they believe she is guilty but found her not guilty tells me they didn’t follow the law, didn’t do their job and spent no time looking at the overwhelming evidence the state presented to clear up their questions.
It should be obvious to anyone that an entire jury failed to do their job when every single one believed the defendants guilt and still voted to acquit. If the state didn’t prove guilt the entire jury, following the law, could not find for innocence.
Brytani, that last sentence left me a little confused. I think I know what you meant, but you may want to redraft it for folks. (either that or I’ve had an acute attack of dense) ;^)
If you think this woman was guilty, there is a mountain of evidence there to make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt ot you.
What these jurors are stating, is a lie. They aren’t mournful of the verdict. They don’t think she was guilty, because few of them took notes or paid attention during the trial.
They are now saying they thought she was guilty, but the evidence wouldn’t justify a guilty verdict, because they want the public to think they identified with their views.
No they didn’t. Hogwash!