I personally think they were guilty. wish there was a discussion program following the result.
2007-02-15 22:55:33 · 5 answers · asked by kendal 4 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Although technically the only way to vote was not guilty because of the lack of evidence and the fact that prosecution had not done a good enough job, I feel that the most responsible decision to come would have been a hung-jury.
I know the fact of another trial does not seem appealing to anyone, especially in a case such as this, but a re-examination of the 'facts' could well determine more effectively who was lying and who was telling with the truth, as liars find it hard to maintain a fictitious account.
2007-02-16 00:41:25 · answer #1 · answered by Dominic N 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Had to be not guilty because not enough evidence to prove otherwise. Not sure if it was the correct decision though.
The show was fictional, and both sides acted it well.
So if I had to appear on a jury at a real trial, I would now be aware that people can be very convincing actors. Crying, sobbing, etc. can all be put on.
Dont always believe people who may be just accomplished liars.
Only believe facts.
2007-02-16 05:58:05 · answer #2 · answered by creamfeather 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most of the jury thought the girl had been raped, but they could not be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. So therefore - as unfair as it might seem - the verdict was the correct one under the law.
2007-02-15 23:03:22 · answer #3 · answered by Hello Dave 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Many of the jury THOUGHT they were guilty but that the prosecution hadn't proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. That is the standard - reasonable doubt.
I've run into that defence lawyer Carter-Stevens before though and he's a slippery nasty bit of work in my opinion.
2007-02-15 23:01:20 · answer #4 · answered by Ian69 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Black man not guilty,white man guilty
2007-02-15 22:59:33 · answer #5 · answered by bty937915 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋