The defense lawyer, court appointed, I believe, did a much better job in trying to raise our doubts, which is all he needs to do to be effective. He was far more eloquent and had a better sense of narrative. He was a big man, like a more handsome, younger version of Charles Durning. I thought he was pretty good.
At first I was convinced the prosecution did not have a case. But the more I think about it, and I guess this is the intention and wisdom of deliberation, the more I can, in retrospect, see culpability, even though the connections are not 100% solid.
But here's the thing. The guy deserves to be off the streets even though the evidence against him may be shaky. Do you ignore this fact and, using your common sense, do a favor to the city and lock him up? Or do you really follow the instructions to the letter and acquit him, letting him out on the streets again?
I think something similar may have happened in the Casey Anthony trial, which I didn't follow, but I did follow the uproar after the verdict. Shoddy police work makes convictions difficult. Jurors feel a huge sense of responsibility and if they follow the judge's instructions to the letter of the law, they may vote to acquit, even if this runs contrary to the hunches in their hearts.
I did not get a full sense of who the jurors were and what they think, because we were a very obedient group and did not discuss the case among ourselves (that I know of). It was a mixed group of Manhattanites, racially, economically and professionally diverse, from people who seem pretty streetwise, to coddled liberal intellectuals and everything in between. I have a feeling there are several very smart and common-sensical New Yorkers in this dozen. I hope that the jury, as the judge instructed, uses their common sense and not their sympathy, prejudice, ideology or fears.
As I write this right now, having deliberated only with myself, I'm thinking: lock him up and throw away the key.