Anyhow, the jury I was on (except for me) took only a few minutes to decide the accused was guilty because, were he not, his defense attorney would have presented evidence to that effect. After several days we reported to the judge that we were deadlocked, but the judge told us to deliberate until we came to a decision. That did not make much sense because by then we were not even speaking to one another except for their making insulting remarks about me. After another day we reported deadlock again, and we were told to deliberate until we came to a decision. A day later, the jury told me we needed only to have the preponderance of evidence to convict, not beyond reasonable doubt. Did not seem fair to me for someone who would get 5-7 years in prison. So I sent in a question to the judge to explain the difference between "preponderance of evidence" and "beyond reasonable doubt" and this did not change my opinion that the prosecution had not made a case. But after a while the psychological pressure was too great and I gave up and voted to convict.I always thought that criminal cases you needed to be beyond a reasonable doubt, and with civil cases you simply need to have a preponderance of evidence.WRJ
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<