Does anyone have reason to believe that the jury didn't follow the law?

[MannyGoldstein]

Bad jury, or bad laws?

I'm guessing the latter. But I could be wrong.

[DesertFlower]

1. i don't know. i can't believe they

didn't find him guilty of manslaughter even though i would have preferred 2nd degree.

[marshall]

64. I think the problem was that both choices for guilty had equivalent sentences

If the prosecution was really scrambling at the end for an alternative for the jury, they should have picked something that had around a ten year sentencing. Florida doesn't distinguish between two types of manslaughter, as do other states. The only other choice is third degree murder. The prosecution knew what they had before the trial began--many people were saying the case was lost before the defense phase even started. I think the State should have gone for some lesser charge from the beginning.

[Mr. David]

2. they failed to follow the law.

A boy is still dead, and this murderer gets away scot-free?

That's one fucked up jury.

[DesertFlower]

3. well said. nt

[spin]

16. Do you understand the concept of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? ...

The prosecution failed to build a convincing case. The defense planted plenty of doubt in the jury's mind.

[kelliekat44]

34. The operative word is "reasonable." There was room for plenty to find him guilty. nt

[BayouBengal07]

37. No, the operative word is "beyond."

I don't agree with the absolutist logic of Florida's stand your ground law, but it was obviously possible to convince the jury that Zimmerman was not beyond a reasonable doubt guilty.

[laundry_queen]

58. It's not beyond ALL doubt

it's beyond a REASONABLE doubt. You can, as a reasonable person, still have some doubts and find him guilty. It seems that jurors in these cases have no idea what reasonable doubt really means.

[Orrex]

35. In addition...

I served on a jury a few years ago, and by the end of the trial we were all quite confident that the defendant was guilty of 3rd degree murder. However, the prosecution failed to make its case, so we reluctantly found him not guilty of that charge.

It troubled us deeply, but the judge was very specific in instructing us to reach a verdict based on the evidence presented, rather than our own opinions.


In addition to the defense planting doubt about Zimmerman's (obvious) guilt, the prosecution made a terribly weak case.

[spin]

49. That's exactly how I feel. When I have been on a jury I followed the judge's instructions. ...

I can understand all the emotion generated by this case. Still our system of justice is based on evidence not emotion.

I still feel that if Zimmerman would have just stayed in his vehicle, Martin would be alive today.

[Orrex]

57. regarding the case on which I served

We were able to convict on criminal conspiracy, which I believe landed him quite a few years in jail. And the actual shooter was convicted in the murder, so he's serving a long sentence as well.

The Zimmerman verdict makes me ill, but I can understand how the jury might (reluctantly) have reached it.

[NCTraveler]

84. I was a juror on a manslaughter trial and we, as jurors, felt similar.

There was a crucial piece of evidence that was not admissible. The prosecution decided to mention it. It turned into quite the courtroom drama. The defense was furious at what the prosecution did and the judge wasn't very happy either. The judge, behind closed doors, had already ruled that it could not be admitted. We, as jurors, were instructed to put no weight behind what the prosecutor had said. Without that piece of evidence we could not go with a guilty vote. It was very stressful as we all felt he was guilty. Our jury instructions were very clear and we followed them. This was in Florida. We took our job very serious.

[liberal_at_heart]

4. the corporations claim they are following the laws. The government claims they are following the law

Last edited Sun Jul 14, 2013, 12:51 AM - Edit history (1)

The Supreme Court claim they are following the laws. This country is FULL of bad laws. I say screw the instructions the jury was given and screw the law. I would have voted guilty on manslaughter.

[newcriminal]

65. Thankfully those six women didn't "screw the instructions".

I promise you if you were a defendant in a criminal case you wouldn't want the jury to "screw the instructions". They did what they had to do, popular or not.

[hack89]

69. Say it was a black defendent and a white jury

would you feel comfortable with "screw the instructions the jury was given and screw the law." in that case.

Either the jury obeys the law or they follow their their personal feelings.

[Blackford]

5. This is what happens when a bad jury (all white) meets fucked up laws n/t

[Jenoch]

8. I thought one of them was multi-ethnic?

[bobduca]

6. Did you read what they had to ignore?

What I want to know is was that the judge's instructions based on precedent or was this a precedent setting case with regard to stand your ground laws?

Does anyone with legal knowledge of FL laws know?

[1KansasDem]

21. The "stand your ground" defense was not used.

[RobertEarl]

73. What then, was the defense?

If it wasn't stand your ground, what defense is there to get out of your car and make trouble with someone who is not committing a crime?

[1KansasDem]

79. It was simply self defense.

He said he was in fear for his life from the beating he was getting, he used his weapon to defend himself.
The jury bought it.

[Igel]

39. No, I didn't.

I read the judge's instructions to the jury. She struck me as writing mostly boilerplate. There's probably a template for it and that's why it took 27 pages, most of most pages blank.

But it is true that it is up to the jury to decide the weight to give to the evidence, which witnesses they think are truthful, conflicted, confused, misleading, wrong, or lying.

And as it's been said over and over, stand your ground wasn't touched in the trial. It was all self-defense, but most of those laws are pretty old in their substance if not in all their details. English Common Law, "Anglo-Saxon the French hadn't taken over yet" old.

[msanthrope]

7. Bad jury. There was more than enough to convict...the prosecution failed, however, to

draw a clear map for the jury.

[DevonRex]

28. Yeah. But the jury had all the necessary evidence. The

prosecution didn't present its case well. But, the pieces were all there and were easy to put together. Even if they had just gone over what the defense said happened, they would have seen that it couldn't have happened as Zimmerman claimed. And if that's the case the only conclusion is that he's guilty. Otherwise why lie?

[Igel]

40. No that's not the only conclusion.

It's not even the likely conclusion.

GZ's story doesn't have to make sense. His lawyer could have recited nursery rhymes. The only thing he lawyer needed to do was to show that there was reasonable doubt and that a reasonable person in GZ's shoes could have reasonably used lethal force in self defense.

Period.

The prosecutions put forward all the pieces necessary to construct the scenario in which GZ was a cold blooded murderer and no self-defense option was appropriate. But saying "this is possible" or even "this is probable" is *not* the same as "this is what happened beyond reasonable doubt."

The jury had to look at the prosecution's case and not say, "Does it make sense?" but "Is it compelling?" It wasn't. The witnesses that those convinced of GZ's guilt oohed and ahed over were often ambiguous. Part of the testimony was waffling, part was compelling--but the net effect is "waffles."

Making the prosecutor's case fall obviously short of "beyond reasonable doubt" wasn't hard. For all the mocking of the defense's case, there was a lot of confirmation bias at DU. The overabundance of confirmation bias and lack of critical thinking has just led to bias confirmation. That's sad.

That GZ's story didn't always hang together isn't surprising. But it didn't need to, and it hung together more than people gave it credit for. At many times, I got the impression that people were wilfully misconstruing and misunderstanding. They weren't. It's what you get when there's just ill will.

[Duer 157099]

81. "His lawyer could have recited nursery rhymes." Or told knock-knock jokes.

Oh wait...

[TorchTheWitch]

60. the jury shouldn't have needed a fucking map

All they had to do was use their brains. No verdict should ever come down to how shitty the attorney was when anyone with more than one brain cell to rub up against another in order to form a thought could STILL see all of the lies Zimmerman told, the physical impossibility of his being able to pull out his gun where he claimed it was and the positions he claimed he and Martin were in, the excruciating obvious lies about how he got his little booboos, the fact that they were no where near the sidewalk, his ridiculous claim that he got out of the car to get an address, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, Bernie sucked so bad he might as well not have been there at all and let one of the defense counsel take his place. But that shouldn't stop any jury from seeing what the prosecutor was too stupid to point out when it was all right in front of their faces. I'm convinced Bernie belly flopped on this case on purpose. I could never figure out why on earth he was doing such an almighty shitty job with his record and reputation. Now I know.

This case was in the bag because of politics, which is why the police fucked it up completely and let the shitass go in the first place. Were it not for the public outcry there never would have been a case, so they soothed the public with bringing charges and then got Bernie to throw it.

No wonder the media went on and on about SYG as soon as the public outcry started and when the case finally got going they wouldn't see the obvious either. And piss on Judge Nelson for putting in instructions for SYG but only to apply to Zimmerman when it ALSO applied to Martin. The only way she COULD do that was by also giving instructions to ignore everything that went before the physical contact which is utter bullshit. She did that because with what Zimmerman did as the aggressor - and he was CLEARLY the aggressor - disqualified him for SYG.

Still, the jury should never have needed a prosecutor to lead them by the nose when the obvious was right in front of their faces. This case was political rigging from the beginning starting with that git of a police chief. There was always something very fishy about how this case was treated from the very night it happened and the media picked up on that... then they got their marching orders, and none of it was brought up again. In that first taped interview with the police Serino was FEEDING Zimmerman clues as to what to say. He FED him this shit about it being his voice that was screaming. He purposely didn't continue on with any line of questions as soon as Zimmerman got caught in a lie and purposely moved on to something else. That was no interrogation that happens with every single other person in far less blatant circumstances - not even close. They were HELPING him. And just where the hell was everyone for FIVE HOURS before Zimmerman was finally brought to the police station? Who did Zimmerman call just after he shot Martin? It wasn't his father and it wasn't 911. That has never come to light, and there's no way they wouldn't have checked his phone - unless they didn't check it on purpose.

[msanthrope]

63. The jury always needs a map. And Bernie didn't throw the case....I think what we will find in the

years to come is much the same as with OJ...the prosecutors who appeared in court were at the mercy of those with political aspirations. I think the decision to not talk about race came from higher up, and it proved fatal to this case.

An effective prosecutor always makes a map. Jurors always expect a reason why, a motive. The prosecution does not have to prove motive, but without suggesting one, it leaves too much to the defense.

[TorchTheWitch]

70. so Bernie didn't give them a map... uh, why?

Because he forgot? Because he didn't feel like it? Because with his long and distinguished career he somehow didn't know? He didn't give them a map and did a colossal shitty job for a reason. And that reason can only be because that's what Corey and the higher-ups wanted and what he was appointed to do. They wanted this case to lose. Hell, they didn't even want a case at all to begin with. It was only public pressure that made them bring a case at all, and once they did that so they wouldn't appear as such obvious shills they made sure they wouldn't lose.

[msanthrope]

78. I agree...I think he was deliberately handicapped by Corey and I think we will eventually

hear much more about this.

[pintobean]

9. No. They did their job.

It was a shit case. Most of the witnesses that the prosecution called worked in the defense's favor. I thought this trial was over when the prosecution rested.

[frazzled]

10. It's all about interpretation of what the laws and facts were

If all one had to do is plug in a "law," there would be no need for juries, or trials for that matter. The jury first had to decide what the facts were, and then apply the law. A different jury might have found different facts, "followed the law," and come to an entirely different conclusion.

[Nye Bevan]

11. I've heard on DU that they were a bunch of Paula Deens.

Personally I think that they were good people (as most people are) who did their best to follow the law and the jury instructions.

[rainy]

12. How does it matter what the law said

They had the right to come back with a guilty verdict regardless and the court would have supported that verdict.

[magellan]

18. I hope you aren't seriously suggesting that the law doesn't matter

...or that the jury should have gone outside the scope of the law to find him guilty. It's bad enough the bastard managed to get an acquittal because of the circumstances of his crime. If jurors start disregarding the law then we might as well let vigilantism take over. Then we can all be GZ.

[rainy]

26. What I'm saying is that if there is a law they are dealing with

that says they can't find guilt then why deliberate? What ever the law said they were allowed to find guilt because they could.

[magellan]

33. That isn't what the law says, though

When the jury sent their question about manslaughter, our legal analyst Bill Sheaffer explained it. He said it could be bad for the defense, but maybe not. He said the law regarding self defense in murder 2 and manslaughter was the same, so if they bypassed murder 2, then if they followed the letter of the law they also had to find him not guilty of manslaughter.

I'm heartbroken and enraged over it too -- I really thought there was a good chance GZ would go down for manslaughter. But when Sheaffer said that I had a bad feeling that the jury would stick to the law...and it did.

[stranger81]

47. Apparently, we can all be GZ anyway.,

And the law doesn't matter much if you're a non-white victim.

Welcome to America, 2013. Same as America, 1953.

[gopiscrap]

13. absolutely when you get the six most racist

gun nuts possible who have been brainwashed by a fucked up media and the belligerent gun culture that is in existence for the past 2 centuries then you get the verdict t that just came down.

[spin]

22. So the jury doesn't agree with your opinion therefore it is obvious that ...

they must be six racist gun nuts?

It couldn't be that the prosecution totally failed to present a convincing case that prove beyond any doubt that Zimmerman murdered Martin.

[Dreamer Tatum]

43. Sounds like you have intimate knowledge of the jury.

How is that? Did you try to tamper?

[mzmolly]

14. Yes.

They missed the word 'reasonable' by a mile.

[bettyellen]

36. O Maras clsoing arguement was that they wer not allowed to use common sense- and that

the tiniest unsupported doubt was reasonable. Neither are true- but I'm sure they didn't listen hard enough to know better. Did they ever ask the manslaughter question? Or was it a ploy to make it seem that they were considering it.

[mzmolly]

54. I heard that the prosecution was not pleased with the jury

but the judge denied a request to have two removed?

I think the prosecution was excellent but should have defined the law better - in hindsight. I also wish they would have challenged the fake Grim Reaper vs. Charlie Brown cutouts and the bs cartoon. Juries are said to be visual ....

But - the prosecution likely assumed a jury would do their job.

[madville]

15. They had a tough decision

Emotionally I'm sure most felt he should be convicted of something and punished. I also think the evidence wasn't there to reject the self defense claim with no doubts. The prosecution had an uphill battle from the beginning without any hard evidence like a good eye witness or video recording.

He's not done by a longshot though, a civil lawsuit is possible, I think anything federal is a long shot though.

I think the jury made the only decision they could with the evidence and testimony that was presented to them and the instructions they were ordered to follow. I would bet some of them didn't want to make that decision though.

[TorchTheWitch]

75. it's rare that any case has an eye witness or video

Exceedingly rare. The prosecution had a boatload of evidence particularly Zimmerman's lying words and the lack of physical evidence to back up his lying words. All the jury had to do was focus on Zimmerman's lies and his entire story of what happened goes out the window. They didn't do that. Either because the prosecution was too stupid to clarify all his lies or even bring up most of them especially those that conflicted with physical evidence or because the jury relied solely on what the prosecution said and not their own common sense and own eyes and ears. They were to go by the evidence, not go by how shitty the prosecution presented the evidence. Plenty of people here could see all the lies the prosecution was too stupid to bother pointing out - there's no reason that the jury couldn't have or shouldn't have either. No case should be weighed on how good or how bad the presentation is by either side but by the evidence they're given. Otherwise there isn't any point to their even being given the evidence at all. It shouldn't have mattered that the prosecution did a shitty job of presenting the evidence - they had the evidence right there in their faces and should have been able to see the same issues and the same Zimmerman lies that we all did.

It doesn't matter what instructions they were given. They COULDN'T have been written in such a way as to not have the jury able to find him guilty, so they didn't get somehow trapped by the instructions. They didn't find him guilty because they didn't rely on the evidence they had despite the crappy as hell job of how the prosecution presented it that CLEARLY spelled out that Zimmerman was a fucking liar about the entire event and the evidence proved it. There is no logical reason why they couldn't have or shouldn't have found him guilty of at least manslaughter if they went by the evidence. For whatever reason they didn't. Who the hell knows what they went by but they certainly didn't go by the evidence.

[liberal_at_heart]

17. I don't see how it is possible that they couldn't find him guilty of manslaughter.

[Igel]

41. That one's easy.

For 2nd degree murder, they first had to ask if the homicide was justifiable. If it was, they could just move on.

So, was the homicide was justifiable beyond a reasonable doubt? For that, the prosecution had to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was not justifiable. A reasonable person in GZ's situation could not find that shooting to kill was reasonable. The jury did not conclude that. They had doubts--maybe a reasonable person in GZ's situation *would* be reasonable in shooting to kill. Since there was reasonable doubt, they had to say that the homicide was justifiable.

Justifiable homicide ruled out 2nd degree murder. So, okay, move on to manslaughter.

For manslaughter, they first had to ask if the homicide was justifiable. If it was, they could just move on.

Been there, done that. If it was justifiable homicide for 2nd degree murder, it was justifiable homicide for manslaughter. Done and dusted.

[liberal_at_heart]

42. doesn't it look so pretty on paper? Does it come with a pretty pink bow?

I would have voted guilty on manslaughter.

[apples and oranges]

19. "Does anyone have reason to believe that the NSA didn't follow the law?"

Bad NSA, or bad laws?

I couldn't resist.

[Azathoth]

20. Neither. No evidence. n/t

[DevonRex]

23. You're wrong. Bad jury. No doubt about it this time. The legal part was easy. nt

[lynne]

24. No reason to think the jury didn't follow the law -

- it was just a horrible situation that they had to deal with. Bad law? Not sure. Would it be considered bad law with a different victim and defendant? This case just riled so much emotion that it was hard to figure out where emotion ended and law began.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

25. They left an open wound on this country

and opened the door to more violence by protecting this scumbag.

[Igel]

45. No, not necessarily.

Yes, there's an open wound. They had the option of closing it, but at a sacrifice.

The open wound was caused by the media. It made the situation raw, inflammed and irritated people. Instead of dispassionate, it aimed for passionate. Both sides.

This was helped in no small part by confirmation bias. We heard what we wanted to hear. Since it's so obvious what the jurors heard and how they had to decide given what we heard and how we interpreted the evidence, how could they have voted so badly?

Well, we can stop and think, "Perhaps they heard the evidence differently. Why might that be so? Let's try to see it from the jury box." Or we can ascribe a motive to them that is completely circular. "They voted 'not guilty'. Therefore they must be racist. And since they're racist, well, it's obvious why they voted 'not guilty."

The latter route is easy. It's what a lot of people believed would happen from the start. They had a prediction based on gut feelings, their prediction was true, their gut feelings must be correct. To consider anything else would be tantamount to self-betrayal. (Which is what critical thinking usually is.)

[6000eliot]

27. The prosecution deliberately threw the case, IMHO.

[DevonRex]

29. After watching the presser, I no longer discount that possibility. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

30. In what little I heard, they weren't stellar nt

[HiPointDem]

44. +1

[HolyMoley]

31. They followed the judges instructions

which, they had a moral obligation to do.

[LittleBlue]

32. The tragedy had nothing to do with Zimmerman

The laws allowing anyone to carry weapons of murder in public is the perpetrator.

Normally this would have been a confrontation that ended with a beating, at worst. But the gun escalated this conflict into someone dead.

[SoCalDem]

38. They wanted to go home

and nothing they decided would bring Trayvon back to life..

[Renew Deal]

46. Reasonable doubt?

It's a high hurdle

[stranger81]

51. Not so high that we don't have 25% of the world's prison population.

A population that is disproportionately black.

Sometimes, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck . . . . It's a goddamned duck.

Racism is alive, well, and flourishing in the good old US of A.

[Renew Deal]

53. Reasonable doubt has been a "problem" in all kinds of cases

From a cop that raped a woman getting off to Casey Anthony. These days, if the person isn't caught in the crime or if there's not a ton of DNA, they're getting off.

[stranger81]

59. Two high profile anecdotes does not change the fact that we lock up an astonishing number of people

under the reasonable doubt standard, the vast majority of them black. "Reasonable doubt" is not an insurmountable bar to meet when it's a black defendant in the dock, even without eyewitnesses. Happens hundreds, if not thousands, of times a day, all over this country.

[NoOneMan]

56. What is "reasonable" is subjective, and the bar is low for black people

And high for white people. Anyone that says different is full of shit.

[krawhitham]

48. The DA was horrible

Bad laws & a bad DA

[Pelican]

50. Lack of evidence...

[GiaGiovanni]

52. Manny, apparently the judge mentioned Stand Your Ground in the instructions to the jury

This was, I think, prejudicial, since the case was really a self-defense case, not a SYG case. The jury had to decide whether or not they thought that George Zimmerman truly believed himself in mortal danger. Some of Zimmerman's actions, like not getting back into his truck and being involved in a confrontation with Trayvon, may indicate that he felt in less danger than his lawyers claimed in court. Manslaughter would have been the right verdict, I think. Zimmerman's acts may not have been provably personally motivated, but they were certainly reckless and led to a death that didn't have to happen.

When the judge brought in SYG, she completely changed the theory of the case. Suddenly, whatever Zimmerman did was OK because he a right to stand his ground. I think that messed up the jury and that was why they asked for the clarification on manslaughter earlier today.

I think this judge needs to be demoted to law clerk.

[Morganfleeman]

66. Not accurate

This was never about stand your ground. What you heard using the words "standing his or her ground" in the instructions come straight out of the statute relating to justifiable use of deadly force 776.013, they don't relate to the stand your ground statute.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

Stand your ground is a completely different animal and juries don't decide on stand your ground. Stand your ground hearings are decided by judges in pre trial hearings.

[GreenStormCloud]

82. Your timing on the "mortal danger" question is wrong.

The only time that counts for believing that you are in danger of death or great bodily harm is when you draw the gun and pull the trigger. Your beliefs a few minutes before don't count.

At the time Z shot, he was on his back getting pounded. It is very hard to run away when you are on your back and someone is sitting on you, so SYG doesn't apply. This was a classic self-defense case.

[NoOneMan]

55. Is a jury good if they follow bad laws?

The law is written in a way where either verdict is equally supported based on subjective interpretation (therefore, they are bad laws). But fuck that. No one had to play that game. At least one could of used their common sense and just said they weren't fucking budging.

[Nevernose]

61. I'm sure that they followed the law to the best of their understanding

It obviously wasn't a clear-cut self-defense case. It would have been thrown out by several previous judges if it was. It wouldn't have taken 16 hours to decide and it would never have gone to trial in the first place. I think they were tired and swayed by a Siegfried and Roy level piece of misdirection, even if the defense attorneys were total assholes.

I think with a million bucks in donations from gun nuts it was very easy to hire people either willing to lie or to use the TV to their advantage.

I have yet to meet a supporter of George Zimmerman who was either aware of all of the facts, or was aware but wasn't a racist gun nut. And, for the record, I'm using a specific definition of gun nut here and not a broad brush.

[otohara]

62. What Laws - It's Legal to Kill People in Florida

thanks to the NRA, ALEC and stupid white people.

[hack89]

67. Bad laws and a dearth of eye witnesses. nt

[rucky]

68. The answer is:

Florida

[Rex]

71. Sounds like they were confused by the judge and the defense.

And only understood it was three options. Which they were confused about. So they acquitted.

[JI7]

72. so why not ask for clarification and take some time until

they are clear with it ?

i don't think they were ever going to convict.

[Rex]

80. Yeah I guess they already decided on a verdict.

nt.

[ctaylors6]

74. I think the jury followed the law

Self-defense cases have always been difficult for prosecutors. IMHO, there were actually more witnesses in this self-defense case than in many others in which it's just the defendant and physical evidence. I think this case mostly came down to burden of proof.

I think this case failed to reach a guilty verdict for that reason plus the following others:

1. I think the part of the FLorida SYG legislation that most needs to be evaluated is the part that lets the police decide whether a suspect should even be arrested in the first place. Florida's law is particularly broad there. It provides from immunity from criminal prosecution, with criminal prosecution including arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. I think that if Zimmerman had been arrested that night, gone to trial, and was acquitted on the same set of facts and law, it might not have become the huge media event that it became.

2. I think Zimmerman was overcharged on Murder 2, and I think the prosecution failed to address manslaughter sufficiently when presenting its case. It seemed like an afterthought. I think manslaughter law is confusing in Florida, and the jury needed more guidance here than it got from the prosecution.

3. I have heard a few former prosecutors on TV say that the prosecution witnesses did not seem well prepared by the state. If that's true (I didn't watch most of the trial), that alone can be game over.

By the way my point #1 is the problem I have with Florida's SYG law. I also understand that that part of the SYG was not clearly defined for courts and that it's has taken years to clarify issues as basic as burden of proof in immunity hearing. I don't think I have a problem with the SYG legislation removing the duty to retreat. Many other jurisdictions have managed to do that without having the issues Florida has had in this area.

[Vinnie From Indy]

76. The prosecutors lost this case during jury selection

It is one of the most important aspects of a case like this. It is obvious in hindsight now that some or all or even just one did not fully understand the concept of "reasonable doubt". As has already been mentioned, reasonable doubt is not "no doubt" or "slight doubt". There are several ways for this to have gone south for the prosecutors. It could have been one forceful personality in the jury room that got the others to believe in a version of "reasonable" that was too extreme. It could also be a combination of one or more jurors teaming up to persuade the others.

In any event, I think the prosecutors probably failed to press the prospective jurors on their opinions of reasonable doubt hard enough during the voir dire (interview).

Sometimes they just get it wrong!

[marions ghost]

83. THIS^^^^^^^^

is exactly how it happens and it happens much more often than people realize.

The jury selection system weeds out anybody who thinks. It needs to be overhauled if you're going to continue using juries.

[Vattel]

77. Good jury, good law, good decision.

[alcibiades_mystery]

85. Oooof