tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19875034.post3949239284215703770..comments2024-02-23T04:01:38.376-05:00Comments on The Grande Enchilada: Jury Duty: Part 3Grande Enchiladahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12469834745007793943noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19875034.post-46919402715111205872011-07-25T12:00:48.373-04:002011-07-25T12:00:48.373-04:00Were you there when the judge read the instruction...Were you there when the judge read the instructions to the jury? By no means are jurors supposed to reach their decisions based on "the hunches in their hearts." They are absolutely obligated to follow the instructions "to the letter." Whether or not you agree with it, that is the way the justice system works in the U.S. The prosecution has to reach a very high standard in terms of proving guilt. They should only present their strongest evidence. Your description makes it sound like they didn't have a strong case -- two witnesses who you didn't think were credible and an armload of police work that didn't amount to anything. One of their mistakes, perhaps, was to throw in everything and the kitchen sink. <br /><br />What this case may have in common with the Casey Anthony case is the prosecution overreaching in terms of their charges. Some commentators say that if they had gone after Casey Anthony on lesser charges -- manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide instead of capital murder -- they would have got a conviction. It sounds like in your case they had a known drug dealer and perhaps should have tried to go after him on drug charges. You do not make it sound like they had a convincing attempted murder case against him.<br /><br />I would also point out that if drugs were legalized, none of this would have happened, and you, the other jurors and many other people would have not had to waste their time on this crap. But of course a lot of lawyers, judges, court clerks, stenographers, etc., would be out of a job.David Lidahttp://www.davidlida.comnoreply@blogger.com