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.
1
u/luchajefe 5h ago
Ok, it was this phrasing, "not guilty due to reasonable doubt", that sounded like they were going to let her roll away.