Oh okay, no one should ever complain about the stupid jury in

[okieinpain]

the OJ trial.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041108/D867ST500.html

Peterson Jury Urged to Keep an Open Mind

[CBGLuthier]

1. I never thought the OJ jury was stupid

The prosecution put on a very lame case. I am pretty sure he was guilty but it takes more than that.

As for the Peterson case, there just is not enough hard evidence to find him guilty. Not of a capital offense anyway.

But again, I do think he did it.

[Jersey Devil]

3. stupid glove trick in that case would have been hilarious

if it were not for the tragic circumstances surrounding it. Those prosecutors were in WAY over their heads.

[Jersey Devil]

2. This is known as the "Alford charge" to the jury

based on a case in which the court ruled that it is proper for a judge to charge (instruct) the jury that it is their duty to reach a verdict. It is usually followed by another attempt to reach a verdict and then a mistrial for a hung jury.

[TimeToGo]

4. Actually

I think open mind isn't the way to think about it. They should be favoring the defense -- and shift to the prosecution if, and only if, they make a case that is beyond a reasonable doubt.

[jrthin]

5. Agreed. But...

this is Amerika. Ask Courttv and those shrill gals (Beth Karrus, the exception), you're guilty until proven innocent