I was once on a jury hearing a case of a woman accused of stealing meat from the grocery store. From the facts presented, the woman was clearly guilty. However, because it was proven that she had somehow slipped away from a mental support facility for people who were mentally (er) “unable” (my term - “unable”) to live independently since they were not smart enough to realize things (so to speak - I’m trying to find an adjective that is correct yet would not necessarily be considered unkind).
Anyway, the judge told us when both the prosecution and defense were given that our job as the jury was NOT to consider what possible punishment would be given from the judge. That we were ONLY to determine whether or not the evidence presented for this case was “guilty” according to the facts presented.
The jury had to decided 100 percent – every member of the jury – that the accused WAS guilty for the accused to be “guilty.”
I tell ya. It was very CLEAR that when that woman went into the grocery store, loaded up her cart with all kinds of meat, and left the store, pushing the cart out the doors without bothering to stop to pay for what was in her cart – that she WAS guilty.
However, I was the ONLY jury member who insisted that she WAS guilty. The other members of the jury, who also knew that she was a “french fry short of a McMeal” were insisting that she could NOT be guilty because they did not want her to go to jail!
I had to keep insisting that the judge told us all that we were NOT to consider the outcome of a guilty decision when we deliberated the facts of the case.
Finally, I was successful and won everybody in the jury to my decision that she WAS guilty.
Yes. We declared her to be guilty.
The judge accepted our decision. And the outcome for her – the guilty thief – was to be brought back home to the facility where she lived in the first place.
Just thot I’d share that.
:extrahappy::clapping: