2 other male jurors decidedly voted not guilty. Not to acquit that's a different thing altogether, acquittance was not available. Not guilty by reason of insanity was the option. He even admitted he had reasonable doubt that she was guilty yet out of spite didn't vote the same way as the other 11 jurors.
Well since he hasn't come out to the media to defend his position or tell his side of the story then the other people's representation is all we have to go off. Even the judge (allegedly) had to explain what reasonable doubt was to him multiple times.
It actually does not. And it requires a full jury agreement not for a single juror. A judge can even set aside a whole guilty verdict if they believe the verdict was reached against the law and the defendant can appeal.
Not defending her. Want justice done and I think there's enough doubt to warrant a nit guilty by reason of insanity and to be remanded into a psychiatric facility for the next few decades at least rather than prison.
From other similar cases we can determine what path is most likely to be followed by the medical evaluation staff when it comes time to evaluate, other cases of similar nature show that they keep evaluating them to be not suitable for release.
nah this is about the integrity of the justice system as a whole. it is for exactly the people you are most certain are guilty that you need to be morally comfortable letting free of the prosecution doesn’t appropriately prove the case. the benefit of the doubt has to rest with one of the two sides of the case and its important that it rests with the defense here and always
It absolutely does not work both ways. While you can't be punished legally for how you vote on a jury, that's a different concept than jury nullification. Jury nullification is *specifically* voting not guilty even when you think they did it, typically because you think the punishment or law is unjust in the first place (i.e. "nullifying" the law). Notably, if everyone on the jury votes that way, then that's the end of the trial, the defendant is found not guilty and they can never be tried again thanks to double jeopardy protections.
The reverse, voting guilty even when you think they didn't do it, is decidedly not the end of the line and will likely be followed up by appeal. And in extreme cases, the defendant's lawyer can enter a motion to have the conviction overturned and the judge can grant that. They cannot do the same for a not guilty verdict.
That isn't how that works, especially in the court of law. The judge did not have to explain to him (again, you are just making stuff up), he had to explain it to the jury. He didn't single any juror out. So all you have is conjecture.
Frankly, these three women should not even be talking about this, but they want their claim to fame. They are not (technically) allowed to speak about what jurors said, arguments inside, and how other jurors voted. Here we are, though.
Yes, there was a hung jury, but the defense tried to get it the hold out removed and the judge denied it because it was completely legal what he decided.
I love the Internet, people can just talk without knowing a single thing even though the knowledge is there to learn.
It is not the job of jurors in this country to justify their decisions made in a court room. It their job to do the best they can in the delivery of justice. This is what he believed to be the justified decision.
You're right, but we can still call him out on it being a wack thing to do because he's not accomplished anything other than a retrial where she could still be sent to a psychiatric institution rather than jail. It's a very odd thing when only 1 juror of 12 has a completely different verdict and usually it's not based in reason or logic.
When you've got 11 other people arguing against you, what is the point of arguing at all? Any arguments he could put up would likely be immediately dog piled by the 11 other people that already made up their mind. Not to mention, reasonable people can absolutely disagree about the exact same data. It happens every day, all the time.
163
u/ghouly-cooly 20h ago
2 other male jurors decidedly voted not guilty. Not to acquit that's a different thing altogether, acquittance was not available. Not guilty by reason of insanity was the option. He even admitted he had reasonable doubt that she was guilty yet out of spite didn't vote the same way as the other 11 jurors.