Quote:
Originally Posted by Kard63
This is the 2nd reason I dont want to go, stupid people.
|
Well, stupidity, at least in jury cases, is open to interpretation. The OJ case aside
.
Regarding this case: Actually, the prosecution could not rebut the defense witness' testimony. They focused all their efforts on proving the guy was drunk. He was drunk, no question about that. But they didn't give any evidence about his defense--he wasn't driving, his buddy was.
I was skeptical at first but the defense witness was credible, even after a nasty and hysterical (but ineffective) cross from the prosecutor.
Since the standard is "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases, the jury acquitted.
If the standard were the civil lawsuit standard of "preponderance of the evidence", I think he'd still be acquitted because the prosecution didn't do its job. All she did was roll her eyes and ask condescending questions when cross examining the defense witness. Maybe that would be good enough for some other people but we the jurors (a couple of engineers, businessmen, a lawyer, and other professionals in the jury) wanted facts or at least impeach the witness or trip him up on inconsistencies. She did none of the above. Instead she focused on how "convenient" the witness' testimony was and she kept rolling her eyes, trying to browbeat the jury into thinking that if we believed the witness that we're idiots. That doesn't work on forums, it didn't work on a jury in a court of law.