A jury’s job is deetermine guilt or innocence based on evidence. Our legal system is supposed to determine innocent unless the evidence is fairly strong.
For example a case I watched on tv last night.
A woman’s young husband gets stomach problems, throwingup and bloody diarhea, for the next 3 days he goes to work, on the 4th he goes to an amusement park on the 5th he mysteriously dies from heart failure.
-
The wife acts untypical in her grief. She sleeps around a bit, gets breast implants. (it was later found out her husband wanted her to get them, wanted to buy them for her). Anyway, the guy dies mysteriously, she doesn’t typically act out grief.
-
They put the case together that she poisoned her husband with aresnic after lab testing revealeed traces of aresnic. They could not find the substance in the home, they could not find evidence she ever looked it up online, or had any contact to ever get it.
-
The defence gets a aresnic poisioning expert who goes over the evidence. He claims its impossible that this was aresnic poisoning that people do not get up and go to work for 3 days after showing the main symptoms of aresnic poisoning and that the lab testing made no coherent sense and must have been done wrong. He spelled out in every possible way that this could not have been aresnic poisoning. (he was the only expert at the trial on aresnic poisioning or aresnic period.
-
The jury convicts BASED ON ARESNIC poisioning, which had been established by the expert as nonpossible.
-
The jury convicted this woman based on her actions and personal lifestyle after her husband’s death, there was no evidence aresnic was even envolved and she was sentenced for life imprisonment in the jury’s mind for killing with aresnic.
Idependent toxiologists also confirmed that the testing made no sense (When they retested the tissues and didn’t find aresnic) others said that the original lab results MUST have been botched, and the original jury members still supported THEIR decision.
Its just fucking insane.