posted by gyma
Like most rational people on the planet, I was disgusted by the acquittal of the Bundy clan yesterday. Since hearing the news, I've been searching for reasons for the acquittal and this makes the most sense to me (taken from an email sent to The Oregonian by one of the jurors):
“We were not asked to judge on bullets and hurt feelings, rather to decide if any agreement was made with an illegal object in mind,” the juror wrote. “It seemed this basic, high standard of proof was lost upon the prosecution throughout.”
“Inference, while possibly compelling, proved to be insulting or inadequate to 12 diversely-situated people as a means to convict,” the juror wrote. “The air of triumphalism that the prosecution brought was not lost on any of us, nor was it warranted given their burden of proof.”
So while jury nullification could explain what happened, it appears also likely that the prosecutors were over confident and under prepared. I hope the State of Nevada is paying attention.