Just to give an example of nutty thinking that I managed to reverse when stuck being foreman on a jury.
Two hold outs would not vote guilty. Reason? Not proved. Essentially, I think, “no movie of it.”
I asked them if they thought he did what he was accused of. Yes. Then I asked if they had any doubt at all whether or not he did it. Nope, they were sure he did it. No doubt at all in their minds. But they would not vote guilty because it wasn’t proved.
I told them that if there was that kind of proof, there wouldn’t be a trial. Function of a jury is to listen to the witnesses and then think about it. Sort of a metaphysical “what is proof, anyway” sort of discussion.
They weren’t uncomfortable saying he was guilty - they truly believed he was, and said they had no doubt, not the slightest, of guilt.
If they’d have been liberal moonbats, they’d have shifted the basis for holding out.
Guilty guy was convicted. Justice was done.
Well nutty thinking perhaps but it also proved that at heart the two jurors weren’t nuts. Some people need the clearest connections possible from the crime to the criminal in order to convict...they worry about God confronting them had the voted mistakenly.
Sounds like the Casey Anthony jury.