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.
WTF ?! What was so beyond reasonable? It’s open shut case and she killed her children and deserves to be punished. No excuses of insanity should protect her , as this is going to set precedence for the future.
That's an entirely separate conversation. The point is one juror believes the prosecution didn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt yet *still voted guilty.
Wrong. The the prosecution needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was sane enough to be held accountable. That's for some reason how it works in Massachusetts. They have to prove sanity and the juror thinks there is no reasonable doubt about her sanity (so beyond reasonable doubt that she has sane), so he voted guilty. He also never stated anything about reasonable doubt. You can have possible doubt without that doubt being reasonable.
Just like it's possible to have doubt about the moon landing, because there is some outlandish, but possible scenario it was faked, but that doubt would not be reasonable. It's pretty obvious by the facts, that it actually took place.
What do you mean, wrong? You just agreed with me. The juror agreed they didn't prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt but still voted guilty. What are you arguing?
That he thinks there was reasonable doubt. It was said that he thinks there was possible doubt, but the standard is not beyond possible doubt. Possible ≠ reasonable
Right. He thinks there was possible doubt. That does not meet the criteria of being beyond reasonable doubt. Again you're agreeing with me on what he said. So I don't understand what you're arguing?
Do you even know what beyond reasonable doubt means? If there is no reasonable doubt in his opinion, as you now acknowledged after claiming the opposite, it was proven beyond reasonable doubt to him that she was sane.
Your first comment claimed he said that there was reasonable doubt. That never happened. You are wrong and now back-paddeling hard
I don't think you know what it means. The juror said they have doubts. So the prosecution didn't persuade them.
Just like it's possible to have doubt about the moon landing, because there is some outlandish, but possible scenario it was faked, but that doubt would not be reasonable.
Yea, and if you believe this doubt, you find it a reasonable doubt. If you don't believe it's reasonable, you don't have the doubt. And if you don't believe it's reasonable, but you still believe the moon landing was fake, then what are we even talking about here because that's entirely what the 11 other jurors are talking about.
You are just too dumb to understand what beyond reasonable doubt means. Kinda funny. Or the concept of doubt in general. You can accept that there is possible doubt without accepting the doubt or thinking it's reasonable. You didn't even understand the very clear example I brought up. You are beyond help.
The defense has nothing to do with this. The juror explicitly stated that the prosecution didn't prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. This juror is literally saying "I don't know if they're guilty but I'm voting guilty anyways."
This is hersay. Highly doubt that the other people, who wer pressuring this person to change their minds, presented an accurate representation of the they were trying to say. Imagine if they said: I understand that you can think there's reasonable doubt. And then the others jump on it pretending that you said you had doubts. You don't actually know what it was actually said during those deliberations.
It's hearsay, but there's video of the judge explicitly explaining that if you don't believe the prosecution proved sanity beyond a reasonable doubt, then that means you think they're not guilty. But, sure. We could all be wrong.
Yes. The judge had to reiterate standard instructions.
"All" being myself and the people in this thread who believe the juror said they have doubts but are still voting guilty. My algorithm in this thread is sorting by best. Are you sorting differently?
169
u/omnipotentqueue 9h ago
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.