Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
I'll give you the short version:
-No direct physical evidence of defendant's involvement, plus
-No provable cause of death, plus
-A certain definition of "reasonable" doubt.
On the bright side, after the verdict (and the, shall we say, lax rebuttal), we might finally have to confront the bare facts: prosecutors are often exceptionally good at locking down very specific kinds of cases at a 99% clip, and often not all that good at actually performing for a jury in a court of law.
|
Yeah, the little I saw of this case made me question these exact things. Just because she did a lot of things that look suspicious doesn't rise to the level of direct evidence. I feel sorry for jurors. It's hard to follow the letter of the law when you may have that gut feeling that someone is guilty but the State hasn't proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.