I can remember some case in (I think LA) later on, same thing - guy charged with a serious crime (not murder), all kinds of evidence - including copious amounts of video - that underscore he did it, defense basically conceded he did it. Jury voted to acquit. Forewoman admitted she pushed everyone to acquit because she were tired of black people being found guilty for crimes and wanted white people to have to suffer for a change.
Sometimes the jury is not permitted to hear all of the evidence. For example, if some of it was illegally obtained or a key witness disappears or turns up dead or refuses to testify.
The evidence that the investigating officers know of but the jury does not might be sufficient to erase all doubt.
I guess I was completely naïve to think this sort of thing couldn’t happen. I’ve never been on a jury before, but I guess I just assumed that there were some level of standards for the jurors.
When I was on a jury (felony charges, but not murder) everyone took it pretty seriously, but… sample size = 1.
1 Like
just from this post, you’ll never be a juror ever again!
1 Like
I served on a jury once, fairly minor case. Ended up being the foreman on it. It was interesting to get into the deliberation room and hear everyone’s take on what they heard. I didn’t try to steer it one way or another, I let everyone talk and explain and played devil’s advocate on occasion and make sure we were all respectful.
Like twig, sample size = 1.
There’s a documentary series this month on HBO about a guy who was convicted for murdering 3 women in an Illinois state park called Starved Rock in the early 1960s.
Initially, he signed a confession, but he pleaded not guilty. He has now said that the confession was extorted out of him with beatings, harassment, sleep deprivation, and threats of the electric chair.
The guy served 60 years but was paroled recently. The documentarian (the son of the prosecuting attorney) is taking the angle that maybe he didn’t do it.