maskedwoman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2008
- Messages
- 1,627
- Reaction score
- 8,013
Well, there is a pretty fine line then if you say, on one hand, you don't believe the defendant is innocent, but on the other, don't believe the state made it's case. If you believe the suspect is 'not innocent', there must be reasons for believing so.
If I believe a defendant is 'not innocent' of an abduction, gang rape that ends in murder, I am voting GUILTY. I am not wanting someone dangerous walking free and continuing their rampage.
I just cannot accept that it is 'irrelevant' that a juror believes a defendant did in fact commit the violent crime.
I agree. When we consider these issues, we also have to remember that juries don't (or aren't supposed to) know all the things we know from following the case from the beginning. They only know what was presented in the courtroom. So, if a juror thinks the parties are "not innocent", then he or she must have come to that conclusion based on the evidence presented. I don't really see how you can say the evidence convinced you the defendant was not innocent but that you cannot vote guilty.
Having been on murder juries twice, and sat through a number of jury selection proceedings, I have come to realize that some people couldn't find someone guilty no matter what. They simply don't want to the responsibility. But, instead of admitting that to themselves or others, they cop out and say things like "well I just didn't think the state proved their case well enough". A number of years ago, I saw one woman hang three different juries by saying the same thing. The other members of the jury pool finally revolted and refused to serve on another jury with her. Until then, this woman was the lone holdout on three felony trials.