|
This kind of rethinking over a decision is common, and not just in jury deliberation; it's given the name "buyer's remorse" in the field of commerce.
The article hinted at what I thought was the case here--some thought Jackson was guilty but the weakness of the prosecution's case made it impossible for them to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the offense charged.
Still, it reads as though those two are disavowing any vote they cast, and that's just wrong--dumb, as many have pointed out. Dumber still will be any that plunk down money for the books.
However, the notion that this jury was dumber than the Simpson panel is hyperbole; they will remain the standard by which others are judged.
__________________
AVOR
A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.
|