If this flick is an attempt to depict how jurors should not deliberate, then I might give it a 10. I'd wager this is not the case, though. The extant the jury went to go from almost unanimous guilty from the start to unanimous not guilty boggles the mind when one considers how weak the alternate theories were against very strong evidence of guilt. And the last thing debated, the eyewitness's eyesight, which seemed to be the thing that mostly turned the tide, should not have been debated at all since the lady's eyesight was never a subject at trial.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution and the defense need only find enough reasonable doubt equal in weight to the evidence of guilt for a not guilty verdict. But the doubt that the jury must find has to be reasonable. "...but is it possible?" is not enough, Fonda. It must be reasonable. The doubt found by the jury was no where near reasonable. Yet they found not guilty anyway. This is not justice.
19 out of 56 found this helpful