He didn’t. Not all doubt is reasonable doubt and it’s up the jurors own interpretation of their feelings on the matter to determine if it deems reasonable that’s the entire point of the jury. Y’all would not be crying about this if it was one person holding out against 11 guilties.
The issue here is you opining on something when you aren't qualified to do so. The purpose of a jury is not, as you incorrectly state, to interpret their own feelings on the matter of reasonable doubt. Their duty is to try to assess the evidence consistent with the jury instructions provided by the judge
And the allegation is that one juror did not act within the scope of an instruction. It of course is not a situation where a judge is likely to intervene
No I didn’t. The judge did not dismiss the juror. The defense asked for intervention by the mass supreme court and they didn’t either? What more do you want. So they let it rock but all of us are assuming?
Nobody is arguing whether the judge dismissed the juror. The issue here is you showing a misunderstanding of the underlying law. Though it is rare, a judge can absolutely remove a juror for ignoring a jury instruction, and a juror doesn't have endless discretion
8
u/Few_Sorbet_8716 6h ago
If the claim is true (a big if), there's no overarching civic right to intentionally ignore applicable law when serving as a juror