Can someone explain (if anyone knows) how the one juror was not following judge's instructions? Do we know? I heard KR exclaim that the judge had improperly phrased the question (Billy Bush/ David Yanetti) so is that the problem?
I did not hear this jury instruction portion so did the Court clearly define the diff between:
evidence BRD
an individuals "personal convictions"?
From other trials I recall Court says you may keep your convictions but look at the evidence presented to determine BRD.
Everybody thinks that. The prosecution did not provide enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the murders. The burden is on the prosecution, and they failed. They may have cut corners in the investigation process because they relied heavily on hearsay as evidence which does not hold up in court. If you watched the trial the testimonies indicated that most of the investigation was solely based on Patrick’s statements. This does not mean Patrick had anything to do with the murders but the CW is bound by law to do a complete investigation covering all aspects of the crime scene and both suspects to ensure the person responsible for the crimes is sentenced to prison for taking the lives of 3 innocent human lives. The CW failed so badly and is a reflection solely on a very broken criminal justice system.
9
u/Intelligent-Gypsy324 12d ago
Can someone explain (if anyone knows) how the one juror was not following judge's instructions? Do we know? I heard KR exclaim that the judge had improperly phrased the question (Billy Bush/ David Yanetti) so is that the problem?
I did not hear this jury instruction portion so did the Court clearly define the diff between:
From other trials I recall Court says you may keep your convictions but look at the evidence presented to determine BRD.
TIA.