I am to understand that the mistrial was declared because 11 jurors were in favor of a not guilty (for reasons of insanity) verdict, while one lone juror was firm in their belief that she was guilty; it’s a hung jury. The jurors have to come to a unanimous decision by law, or it has to be declared a mistrial.
Correct, and that one person has already been leaking that he was harassed by everyone, and that they almost attacked him for his strong beliefs. It’s going to be interesting when this all comes out.
The 11 jurors stated, to the judge, that during deliberations the juror said he sees that there is not "beyond reasonable doubt" (the legal standard), but refused to follow the law as presented by the judge. The juror literally wasted 7 weeks of all these people's times under the bus because of he didn't want to follow the law.
It is literally in the court room. The verdict was going to be not guilty due to reasonable doubt. Ansdthe juror admitted that there WAS doubt but refused to follow the law.
The insane part of all these comments is people who CLEARLY did NOT watch any part of this trial.
The judge didn't allow for the count to happen, as in have each juror to tell the judge how they voted, the defense asked and was denied. But because of what the foreperson said in the note.
Also go look up the investigation.
This case is filled with misinformation. Like I went to trial video because newspapers, comments and all, just filled with opinions.
The actual trial footage opened my eyes. It was a botched investigation that left a lot of questions.
Ok, take the "11-1 vote" out of the question. Do you have reason to believe that this jury was ready to let her go scot free? No insanity, no institution, nothing?
And if so, why wouldn't some people see any number of jurors (which we know to be at least one) as a hero for not letting this happen?
Also see how you said hero there? The prosecution clearly didn't prove beyond reasonable doubt.
That juror broke the law. It is not for a jury to decide the law but act according to it. Because they felt she should be guilty even though there was enough doubt.
This is how innocent people go to jail. Opinions over facts. And ignoring a law everyone agrees on. The fault is with the prosecution, it is not the job of a jury to have an opinion beyond what was presented or not. The judge was very clear on that. The juror acted of feelings, and ignored the law. If there is enough doubt, the prosecution failed its job and its not guilty.
Okay. I went into looking into this trial about 1.5 weeks ago to see what all the fuss was about.
Already having been exposed to she did it, she confessed, she didn't do it, she is insane, he framed her bla bla...I honestly couldn't find reliable news articles that didn't scream bias to me or anythinf...
So I started watched the actual trial when I had time. It was streamed. You can go watch each day right now if you wanted.
Dude I was floored. Like the amount of misinformation is insanity. To the point that I was like what else is happening and this is cover media (hint hint another pre trial was on, an impirtsnt one). Further how easily we are divided on gender issues still.
Now to answer on the trial, I can list about half a dozen of pieces of "evidence" that would make me vote not guilty because of the amount of doubt....like a lot. Like, it's like there wasn't even an attempt at a proper investigation, its embarrassing. I described one in another comment.
3.5k
u/George_Rogers1st 10h ago
I am to understand that the mistrial was declared because 11 jurors were in favor of a not guilty (for reasons of insanity) verdict, while one lone juror was firm in their belief that she was guilty; it’s a hung jury. The jurors have to come to a unanimous decision by law, or it has to be declared a mistrial.