- Joined
- Oct 10, 2019
- Messages
- 625
- Reaction score
- 8,556
I understand your point and I did say that it certainly is reasonable to be critical of an attorney's performance. In this case, however, my personal opinion is that the prosecutor did a decent job of presenting the case and I sincerely believe that 9 out of 10 "reasonable" juries would come back with a verdict. Unfortunately, juries are always unpredictable. My jaw dropped when Casey Anthony was acquitted, for instance, and while the OJ prosecutors didn't do a great job, there was a mountain of evidence that a "reasonable" jury would have used to convict him. Ultimately, though, it will be the jury who holds the most responsibility here, whatever the outcome. They have more than enough evidence and a good set of instructions. Let's see what happens.I don't disagree with you and I too feel like the evidence is overwhelming and this jury should be able to reach a verdict. But I'm sure you'll agree that ultimately the state has the burden to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. And the fact that these jurors are asking so many questions about how to apply the law to the facts and in light of GC not covering this in her 2 hour closing you have to ask whether the fault lies with her. At least some of it does. JMO.