nssherlock
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 361
- Reaction score
- 29
I have to agree with you on all points. Some will say the prosecution put on a good case, well IMO they needed to walk these non death qualified jurors by the hand and explain reasonable doubt. JA put the icing on the cake when he laughed at JB. They didn't see all the behind the scenes shenanigans and blamed alot of the delays on the SA. They were for the underdog, the pros should have picked up on this and played appropriately. :banghead:
I've been too stunned for posting much over the past week........but I think in my own mind I've determined the biggest contributor to the very bad verdict. The very subjective Reasonable Doubt really did need to be explained more clearly to this group. The DT spent a lot of time throwing their version of doubt at the jury. The SA spent their time presenting the facts and leaving the jurors to think through it all and come to a logical conclusion.
We live in a world now of sound bites and 80% solutions/decisions..........the days of coming to studied, well reasoned decisions seem to be gone so the take away lesson is that in the future we need to recognize that you have to give people the answer you want and then tell them over and over why it's the right answer.