One thing I've never understood is how a jury member would NOT be biased after hearing all the evidence. Regardless of there being no evidence that places Garland at the Liknes home, or no evidence that the 3 were killed at the home, I feel like if I were a member of the jury, it would be hard to find him not guilty regardless of the lack of direct evidence as mentioned. I would probably think he's guilty based on the opening arguments.
I understand that it's "innocent until proven guilty" but personally, it would take a lot more to convince me that he's innocent (or not guilty I should say) versus convincing me that he is guilty.
|