Reply #33: Perhaps [View All]

[markses]

At the same time, our system puts the onus on the prosecutor to present a solid case.

In this case, Mr. Smith's previous street grab sounds eerily similar to this one (minus the murder, of course), so chances are he was in fact guilty of the crime. The prosecutor - no doubt - will still feel bad that he couldn't convey the clear truth of the case to a jury of twelve.

While I have served on jury duty, and was - like many people - shocked at the seeming ignorance of the other jurors, at the end of the day I saw that the jury actually was scrupulous about following the law, and acted as if the burden of proof was, in fact, on the prosecutor. We convicted, bu not before giving a reasonable, invigorating, and - ultimately - heartening hearing to the defendants case. Far from the "OJ" problem (which assumes most jurors are just stupid), I think that our system is, by and large, pretty damn good. I think most people on juries are honest, dedicated, and ultimately fair (though there are problems with race and perception, to be sure). For this reason, I believe that if a jury acquits, then chances are the prosecutor did not produce a solid case.