Quote:
Originally Posted by taxbuster
If you were a juror, you likely would have been instructed by the Court (the Judge in this case) to do the exact OPPOSITE of what you have just done: DO NOT form an opinion until you have heard ALL the evidence.
And your "evidence" on which you are acting at the moment is nothing but a suggestion from one Defence Counsel, with NO EVIDENCE provided to support it. It's a "theory", and as yet not one supported with any facts.
Critical thinking is hard.
|
Unfortunately the weakness of the jury system is that it's populated by humans with human frailties and varying levels of being able to actually do what the judge directs. And often they take into account things they shouldn't (eg, I've seen a juror say they decided someone wasn't telling the truth because they wouldn't look at the jury directly).
So despite what I've said before, the fact the notion got out there before the jury could impact the case even of there's no corroboration. We might never know.