- Sep 12, 2005
- Reaction score
I personally have wondered if HHJP is not partially to blame for their decision. I know alot of you love JP, but hear me out. The jury loved him, he treated them well, there is no doubt about that. HHJP bent over backwards for the defense, IMO opinion to prevent a verdict overturned on appeal. He schooled JB daily on the law, often let them question witnesses outside of scope, he sometimes ruled in their favor as a precaution, when IMO he should not have, he allowed things said in JB's closing that were clearly breaking the rules, and he did not come down on JB hard enough for his behaviour. Many times the jury saw this judge treat JB with kid gloves. Now ALL OF US know it was to prevent a mistrial and prevent a verdict that would be easily overturned, however I dont think the jury understood that. Looking back I now think that the jury probably thought that the judge was being so nice to the DT because he thought their client was not guilty! I know if someone I like and respect treats someone nicely I usually also assume that I can trust that person too. In addition HHJP seemed harder on the prosecution, he held them to higher standards, I get that, but did the jury get that?? What do you all think?
I agree with a lot of this and will add that I have always hated how he did the jury selection and was afraid just for this reason. I do feel the state had a lot more they could have and should have presented that showed a clearer picture of motive and other evidence. I know there were multiple reasons for not piling it on also but obviously since they don't get a re-do they should have.
I agree with a lot of it too.