No, it just means there wasn’t enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. People like to bring emotion and opinions to the jury room but in the end you are instructed to ONLY go by the evidence allowed in the courtroom.
Right, but the evidence was he said he shot someone for walking across his lawn. The facts of the case are not in dispute. He saw a bunch of people walking across his property, got his AK-47 rifle, and fired “warning shots” at them, killing man. That is what we know happened because there were many witnesses, including the defendant.
No. That’s what You know. That’s not the same with how things were presented in the courtroom. This is why people get so mad and don’t understand how a jury could come to said conclusion. I’ve been in several juries and this is how they work.
I mean sure prosecutors don’t always go after a case maybe the way they should, but it’d be pretty hard to believe that they wouldn’t be able to establish the admitted facts of the case. I would have to see something telling me that they neglected to inform the jury of the literal basis of the case before I give them a pass.
To use an example, this would you be like you arguing that the lawyers in the OJ Simpson trial failed because they neglected to tell the jury that OJ been accused of killing two people. That’s not messing up DNA evidence that’s literally why they’re there. It’s a stretch too far.
No, it just means there wasn’t enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. People like to bring emotion and opinions to the jury room but in the end you are instructed to ONLY go by the evidence allowed in the courtroom.
Right, but the evidence was he said he shot someone for walking across his lawn. The facts of the case are not in dispute. He saw a bunch of people walking across his property, got his AK-47 rifle, and fired “warning shots” at them, killing man. That is what we know happened because there were many witnesses, including the defendant.
No. That’s what You know. That’s not the same with how things were presented in the courtroom. This is why people get so mad and don’t understand how a jury could come to said conclusion. I’ve been in several juries and this is how they work.
I mean sure prosecutors don’t always go after a case maybe the way they should, but it’d be pretty hard to believe that they wouldn’t be able to establish the admitted facts of the case. I would have to see something telling me that they neglected to inform the jury of the literal basis of the case before I give them a pass.
To use an example, this would you be like you arguing that the lawyers in the OJ Simpson trial failed because they neglected to tell the jury that OJ been accused of killing two people. That’s not messing up DNA evidence that’s literally why they’re there. It’s a stretch too far.