
This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Preston on 06 July 2011 - 08:07

by ggturner on 06 July 2011 - 13:07
Everyone is angry with the jury, but the jury did their job. If you have ever been on jury duty, then you know it is a huge responsibility, especially in a case like this one. It is the job of the prosecution to prove without reasonable doubt that the person on trial is guilty. The judge is also responsible for explaining the extent of the crime and punishment according to state laws. Given the evidence, the jury could not find Casey guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sure members of the jury felt she was guilty, but solid proof was not presented. Having been a juror myself on more than one occasion, and in a couple of serious cases, it is not always easy to come up with a verdict. It is a humbling experience knowing that you will help decide someone's future.

by Sock Puppet on 06 July 2011 - 16:07
This is why innocent people are put to death every year in this country. He must be guilty the state says it is true.
SM, what about the constitution? What about the state having the burden of proof.
The prosecution did not prove their case. Simple as that.
It is our system and plenty of innocents are convicted everyday in this country. This is not rich OJ, this is the system at work. Good or bad it is our system. I never hear you complaining about wrongly convicted people. How many innocents has TEXAS EXCUTED in the last 20 years?
No sane person would have convicted her, look at the jury at least 14 of them said the prosecution did not prove there case. I suppose you know more than they do?
Did you even watch one second of the trial or is this opinion taken off of one of your sites you love to copy off of?

by Ninja181 on 06 July 2011 - 16:07

by Ninja181 on 06 July 2011 - 16:07
SP can you provide a link to where it says "14 jurors said they didn't prove the case? I haven't heard that. I heard ONE juror say that, and they were an alternate.

by Sock Puppet on 06 July 2011 - 16:07
I would venture to guess that it wasn't a hung jury so all 12 were in agreement.
Face it, the state did not prove their case and the jury was smart to see it. Unlike some states/people who would have given her the death penalty.
IMO, the jury did their job. I am surprised a lot more of the constitution freaks aren't applauding this decision. Oh yeah, they only use the constitution when it is convenient for them.

by Ninja181 on 06 July 2011 - 17:07
Here is a direct quote from you: "14 of them said the prosecution did not prove there case".
To my knowledge only one juror (an alternate) has spoken publicly. He did say HE thought the state didn't prove their case.
CAN you provide a link to the other jurors saying this?
by GSDloyalty on 06 July 2011 - 17:07
That jury wasnt even in there long enough to do sh__ !!
A baby is dead and the mother was the last one with it.
I dont care if there wasnt enough evidence at least take time and go thru every piece of it. They didnt even want to see anything before they made the verdict. They even left their notes in court.

by Sock Puppet on 06 July 2011 - 17:07
Hey Ninja I know you have it out for me and that is okay. If it makes you feel better.

by Ninja181 on 06 July 2011 - 17:07
You said, "I would venture to guess that it wasn't a hung jury so all 12 were in agreement".
Of course it wasn't a hung jury or they could prosecute her all over again in a NEW trial.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top