In defense of jurors

Of course in the wake of the Anthony verdict there are all sorts of idiots castigating the jurors for their verdict.

I maintain that if you haven't been a juror on a murder trial, or any trial for that manner, then you're blowing smoke up everybody's asses.

We operate under the rule of law and as a juror you're required to evaluate the evidence and testimony you're given along with the judge's charges. It's a very clinical thing. You HAVE to conclude things with all this in mind. You're given very specific directions. You cannot, you cannot decide someone's life based on a hunch or a feel or because you just don't like the accused. You cannot. Otherwise, you might as well live in some godforsaken despot-ridden country.

With that said, I truly believe the Anthony trial jurors had no choice other than what they did. That doesn't mean you don't think she or her family were involved in something, somewhere that contributed to the death of the child.

But, it wasn't what was on trial. It's horrible. It's heartwrenching. But.

I get tired of the beating up of jurors. The two trials I've been on have been composed of very intelligent and thinking people. When we ruled that one guy was going away for 40 years without parole, having waived the death penalty, we all cried and shook. Not that we didn't believe he was guilty, but that it was an horrific thing that we had to do, along with having seen pics of the dead guy, that we were actually doing this. But we did.

The prosecutors in the Anthony case didn't prove their case. The end. The jurors took their oaths seriously and came up with the appropriate, NON-hunch verdict.

If you have never been a juror you have no idea how seriously people take this. And forget the "CSI" bullshit pundits have been proffering. Any intelligent person knows that circumstantial evidence can convict someone. It just has to actually connect to the case it's involved in.

Sorry. Rant over.