Well said.
I was recently on a jury, and like I told a friend of mine, I thought he was probably guilty of something, just not guilty of what he was being charged with.
I intend to keep an eye on the case when it is retried.
The prosecution utterly failed to prove anything other than what the defense was not disputing in the first place.
Cops on fishing expeditions 2906Thanks for ignoring the hyperbole. On point, I don't know that any case you could reference would cover this. See, I have to believe that the SCOTUS...
The prosecutor went to great lengths to prove what was already accepted fact and was apparently hoping the jury would rely on the defendant to prove his innocence.
The defendant looked guilty and may even be guilty, but in this country the burden of proof is supposed to be on the prosecution to prove guilt.
Unfortunately, it ended in a mistrial and more taxpayer dollars will be spent retrying him and probably continuing to incarcerate him until that time and if he is convicted beyond that.
Discussing the case with a few other jurors after the mistrial was declared, at least half the jury was leaning towards aquittal - I don't know about the others.
I don't understand why the cops didn't test several pieces of evidence for fingerprints. If they had done so and if the defendants prints had been on them, I would have voted to convict and I think everyone else would have as well.
