I agree, there is room for reasonable doubt, I do believe if they manage to throw the bag out of the evidence he will get his doubt. I just don’t see them throwing the bag out.
I don’t think there is room for a non-guilty verdict though. At minimum he will have stalking conviction, at maximum he will get murder conviction. Outside of the jury nullification I don’t see a full innocent being done, but that will have to be done on both the state and federal cases.
To go back to your actual question though: Due to the publicly available evidence, I believe the older folk will have issue with if he goes free. I don’t believe any fights will happen in regards to it, but it would be a clear abuse of process (in the eyes of the public). It would be like OJ Simpsons “If I did it” all over again.
It’s a big reason why im firmly against the public getting involved with cases like this. It doesn’t matter what the jury says, the general public thinks he did it, due to the amount of news given on the case. His battle won’t end at the courts, he will have to fight that claim for the rest of his life and thats not fair to him if he is actually innocent.
The only way I can see the general public being ok with an innocent verdict, is if they make it absolutely clear that the evidence given to the public was embellished and not actually correct. That would be an insane turn of events though. If it ends up being a case of the evidence was thrown out/not being able to be used, or a jury nullification did somehow happen, people are going to complain and call it a systematic failure, regardless of cause or reasoning. Innocent until proven guilty is only correct in the court process. With current day media coverage you are guilty until proven innocent.
I agree, there is room for reasonable doubt, I do believe if they manage to throw the bag out of the evidence he will get his doubt. I just don’t see them throwing the bag out.
I don’t think there is room for a non-guilty verdict though. At minimum he will have stalking conviction, at maximum he will get murder conviction. Outside of the jury nullification I don’t see a full innocent being done, but that will have to be done on both the state and federal cases.
To go back to your actual question though: Due to the publicly available evidence, I believe the older folk will have issue with if he goes free. I don’t believe any fights will happen in regards to it, but it would be a clear abuse of process (in the eyes of the public). It would be like OJ Simpsons “If I did it” all over again.
It’s a big reason why im firmly against the public getting involved with cases like this. It doesn’t matter what the jury says, the general public thinks he did it, due to the amount of news given on the case. His battle won’t end at the courts, he will have to fight that claim for the rest of his life and thats not fair to him if he is actually innocent.
The only way I can see the general public being ok with an innocent verdict, is if they make it absolutely clear that the evidence given to the public was embellished and not actually correct. That would be an insane turn of events though. If it ends up being a case of the evidence was thrown out/not being able to be used, or a jury nullification did somehow happen, people are going to complain and call it a systematic failure, regardless of cause or reasoning. Innocent until proven guilty is only correct in the court process. With current day media coverage you are guilty until proven innocent.