Just finished serving on a jury. Everyone agreed except the foreman who refused to believe that the defendant might possibly be innocent despite the fact that the only evidence the prosecution presented against him was the testimony of the drunk girlfriend of the victim, whom the investigating officer in his own report claimed was not credible and provided inconsistent information. The witness and victim each also had a past conviction for filing a false police report.

I provided 2 alternate scenarios in which the defendant would clearly not be guilty of the alleged offense and asked whether she believed they were credible. She conceded both of them were credible scenarios, but somehow she still was certain of the defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt???

It ended in a mistrial for another reason, but I can't believe someone would sit on a jury and condemn someone (felony charge) based on nothing but a pointing finger.

6/3/2010 4:39:32 PM

idiots

6/3/2010 4:40:37 PM

American justice: where the accused fates' lie in the hands of morons

6/3/2010 4:40:42 PM

arent you supposed to refrain from discussing such details, i too was in a jury waiting room once

6/3/2010 4:41:18 PM

hos before bros??

6/3/2010 4:41:20 PM

6/3/2010 4:42:01 PM

You can talk about it after the trial is over, which it is.

6/3/2010 4:42:22 PM

i always wanted jury duty

then i got called and i got dismissed with the quickness since i was in law school

BOO ON THAT.

6/3/2010 4:42:58 PM

Was this a trial about domestic abuse/violence?

6/3/2010 4:44:28 PM

In the criminal justice system, sexually based offenses are considered especially heinous...

6/3/2010 4:45:16 PM

be funny if you were like "hello all, my internet name is LimpyNuts, and here is my opinion"

6/3/2010 4:46:06 PM

The trial was about larceny of a significant amount of cash that the victim left on a bar.

6/3/2010 4:50:16 PM