[John Jamieson]

I take the jury at face value. They see alot of things we don't. I do think that juries operate on a little too much on emotion instead of logic, but I don't see anyway to change that.

I could not have found him guilty because the evidence didn't reach beyond my reasonable doubt. It's a matter of settling for 1 in 100 wrong convictions vs 1 in 1000. I think the 1 in 100 is probably about where we as a nation operate.

[CharacterCounts]

Keep in mind, as this and other similar threads so well demonstrate, the difficulty of getting twelve people to unaminously agree on anything,

[bvw]

I've been hard on the jury -- I trust the system, generally, yet with a full measure of that truer trust Reagan called "Trust but Verify" -- yet I've seen juries that were "vacationers" -- that took their duty very lackadasically -- prejudicially. In Philadelphia Federal Courts the juries are famed for so favoring the defendant in civil trials because of a general disregard for the seriousness of their duty.

When I saw the two smirking slackers on GVS last night, that threw me on this Jury. They went in looking to convict, and were too easy in the chair before the camera, with no dread aspect seen in their ken.

[Illbay]

"I think... I think... I think..."

There comes a point where your opinion don't mean diddly-squat.

That's why we have TWELVE people on a jury, and a jury is required to be unanimous in their verdict.

This fact overwhelms your allegation of gross injustice. I would bet there aren't 1 in 10,000 wrong verdicts for capital crimes, and of those, pretty much all of them have been reversed due to DNA evidence in the past five years or so.