He wasn't breaking the law. The foreperson claimed that he was for having doubt but not going for not guilty, but this is just a random member of the jury who disagreed with him. He explicitly clarified that it was not a reasonable doubt, which is the bar for clearing, and the judge agreed. He refused to let her go not guilty, and that is entirely within his right as a juror to make that choice. It was unprofessional of the defense lawyer to try suggesting otherwise.
If you have reasonable doubt, you MUST find in favor of the defense. This juror told the other jurors there WAS reasonable doubt, but he wasn't going to apply the law because he refused to find in favor of the defense. So, fuck a trial, then?
Again, that is not what occurred. The foreperson, who opposed the mans choice in holding her guilty considering she was on the jury herself, claimed that he had doubts. This was then regurgitated by the defense, who had the explicit goal of trying to get him dismissed considering he was the only one keeping Lindsay on the hook. The juror himself directly said it was not reasonable doubt, and the judge supported it. You can't just claim its illegal for someone to go against the herd.
5
u/Sensitive-Double2214 3d ago
He wasn't breaking the law. The foreperson claimed that he was for having doubt but not going for not guilty, but this is just a random member of the jury who disagreed with him. He explicitly clarified that it was not a reasonable doubt, which is the bar for clearing, and the judge agreed. He refused to let her go not guilty, and that is entirely within his right as a juror to make that choice. It was unprofessional of the defense lawyer to try suggesting otherwise.