| | | So, this juror comes out and says, "He was guilty." Yet, she didn't vote to convict. In fact, she had to have affirmatively supported the self-defense argument to have rendered the verdict she did.
If she believed the evidence showed him guilty, she had a most important responsibility to have held to her view, even if it meant a hung jury. She can't come out now and "fix" a verdict she believes was wrong by making a statement through HuffPo.
But therein lies the problem: she doesn't believe the evidence supported a guilty verdict, and in fact, HAD to have signed off on the self-defense verdict. There is no "not guilty by reason of not having enough evidence." It is just plain not guilty. Casey Anthony killed her child, but there was no evidence of it, so she is "not guilty". OJ Simpson killed two people, but the jury decided to free him for no good reason at all. "Not guilty". In the Zimmerman case, there was no evidence he committed a crime. "Not Guilty".
The most likely explanation is that she has been threatened with violence from an angry mob. |
|
