07-02-2013, 09:04 AM
(07-02-2013, 08:49 AM)BlueTiki Wrote:(07-02-2013, 08:43 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: . . . jury members are brave enough to render a truthful verdict against the wrongly accused. Evidence, schmevidence - who needs it?!
How'd that workout for OJ?
Wait . . . not fair . . . Left Coast trial.
How'd that work out for Anthony?
The "truthful verdict" and "wrongly accused" thing?
It worked out with the juries rendering verdicts with which I disagreed. Verdicts that reflected their "true" decisions and consensus.
I think the defendants in those cases should have have been charged. There was no conspiring against them. They weren't deemed "wrongly accused". They were deemed "not guilty beyond reasonable doubt" of the charges against them.
I think the juries in those cases considered the evidence and rendered what they knew would be controversial verdicts, given the pre-trial publicity in those cases as well. There was no collaborating to deliver tainted untruthful verdicts based on fear.
Juries don't always get it right as far as I'm concerned. But, when they disagree with my position, I don't assume that's because the process isn't a good one, or that they're liars, or that they're afraid to do what they swore to do.
Some cases are simply stronger than others, and some juries are simply brighter than others.