Huekler was speaking to the fact that Judge Perry was VERY CLEAR about his instructions regarding "Reasonable Doubt".( The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable doubt is possible from the evidence presented.)
Yet, in the same sentence, Huekler says to Griff Jenkins “…if you had the SLIGHTEST RESERVATION…”
Whoa! - - That is NOT the "Reasonable Doubt" standard - that is the “BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT” standard and more importantly - NOT WHAT JUDGE PERRY INSTRUCTED!!!
Huekler then, in a follow-up question by Griff about what turned the decision for him, stated that he made his decision when CHANEY MASON (in the closing) told the jurors how to decide if someone is guilty. (see SLIGHTEST RESERVATION referenced above).
That’s right – CHANEY MASON – set Huekler’s standard of judgement and NOT JUDGE PERRY.
If other jurors (in interviews or discussions) ALSO evidence such a decision standard - this jury DID GET IT WRONG !!!
They deliberated on the standards suggested by the Defense and NOT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE JUDGE.
I am sure I must not be the only one that caught on to the importance of what Huekler said in that interview - sooo - by now, many of the jurors may be on the alert not to make the same mistake - BUT - you cannot erase the interview that we have already heard on Greta's show. Huekler let it slip.
Why Judge Perry allowed Chaney Mason to do, in the closing, what the Judge would do anyway in his instruction set is beyond me. I am sure he probably thought the jury would still hold his instructions as the standard to use in their deliberations.
Huekler let it out accidently - nonetheless - the jury DID GET IT WRONG by using the wrong standard of proof.
It would seem to me that JURY NULLIFICATION has to be considered based upon Huekler's statement (which is on record now and can't be taken back).
Irrespective of all the other reasons people are angry with this jury, this one seems to be the most telling.
Plus -
When one expert says “The smell of Death was in a car” and another expert says “There was no smell of Death in a car” the 1st expert HAS NOT BEEN REFUTED. Countered yes – but refuted – absolutely not. This is the way defense attorneys CONFUSE JURIES.
Put more simply – If a 50 year old woman is on trial for robbing a bank and one witness testifies that the robber he saw was about 50 yrs old or so and another witness is brought up by the defense and says the woman I saw was about 20 years old or so, it means one of them is right and one of them is wrong. NOT – BOTH OF THEM ARE WRONG.
The jury is charged with using evidence based on who they believe. They are not charged with discarding evidence because two sides have issued different viewpoints.
When 2 experts testify to an issue or fact and they are polar opposites – the jury must decide on who they believe. If not – then there is no reason for the jury in the first place. Hell – if juries can just discount testimony because it has been countered, why even present conflicting testimony to them. When the prosecutor presents the court with {gun expert 1} that says “Gun A” was used in this crime and the defense comes up with {gun expert 2} that says “Gun A” was not used in this crime, the judge might just as well refuse both the ability to testify because the jury will just be confused. HOW STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is the jury’s job to make decisions based on expert testimony. Listen to the testimony of the experts and chose the expert you believe is right. If a jury can’t come to a verdict because they can’t decide between two issues and tell the court the same – that is fine – that is a “HUNG JURY”. BUT if a jury actually states a person is guilty or not guilty (which this jury did) because they “…just couldn’t decide. THAT IS WRONG!! – THEY DID NOT DO THEIR JOB.
As to nothing linking Casey Anthony to the crime:
Only one person searched for Chloroform (even if it was only once for 3 minutes) – CASEY
Only one person owned a car that had the smell of decomposition in it – CASEY
Only one person owned a car that had traces of Chloroform in it – CASEY
Only one person asked to borrow a shovel – CASEY
Only one person lied and sent the police on purposeful “wild goose chases’ – CASEY
Only one person had the last known physical custody of Caylee - CASEY
Now before any of you scream – THAT DOES NOT MAKE HER GUILTY - your right – but they all do LINK HER TO THE CRIME!!!
That is what circumstantial evidence is all about.
The actual jurors on this case have already admitted that they thought she might be guilty (even felt so) but since it wasn’t proven, they couldn’t decide on her guilt. Well – by their own statement – they could also not decide on her innocence. Therefore – I submit - this jury GOT IT WRONG!!
Hueklers own statements attest to the fact they used the wrong “standard of proof”. The statements of others (as I just mentioned above) show they were undecided as to guilt or innocence.
A more intelligent and less lazy jury would have spent far more time on deliberations, asked for transcripts and testimony to re-examine or argue over and then after several days of deliberation, and finding they cannot decide on guilt or innocence, tell the judge they are a HUNG JURY!!! This would have been the proper pronouncement and would have sent the message they wanted, which was – Hey Prosecutor, there is a case here, now go back, FIND MORE EVIDENCE OR CHANGE THE CHARGES, and try this again, because you couldn’t convince us either way.
Thats just my opinion - What do you think??
No comments:
Post a Comment