The case of Michelle OKeefe, 18 years old, college freshman. She was killed in her car and the suspect was Raymond Jennings, the security guard on duty the night of the murder. There were no finger prints, no dna nothing on him and he went on trial 3 times.
2 trials were move to LA and their were hung jury, they were in the deliberation room for 3 weeks on the first trial and were 10-2 to convict, on the second trial also took weeks and were 11-1 because that one juror had a dream. Then it was a 3rd one and the jury were out for weeks too, they said that they went to every single video of the defendant were he lied and contradicted himself, they look at all the details, and they even asked to go to the crime scene, at the end he was found not guilty of premeditated first degree but guilty on the second charge, second degree murder and was sentence to 45 to life.
To me these 3 different jury did their job, they couldn't agree so the stood by and didn't give in, same with the 3rd they went to all the evidence, they asked questions, and it was no evidence liking him to the girl, but he was the killer, he was there, he lied, he was on tape lying and it took 10 years since the day of the murder. Justice was served and the jury did their job, they didn't rush so they could get it over and move on.
I feel terribly for her. Casey did a real number on her and she deserves some kind of compensation!
We all have Casey on the brain don't we? The woman on the ABC special is JAYCEE Dugard 
.
sometimes I don't get own kids names right!
The definition was right there in the darn jury instructions! GRRRRRRR. 
They didn't feel like their was enough evidence to give her the death penalty. But, as I'm sure you know, they are not to consider sentencing during the deliberation of a verdict. And. . .big AND. . .in sentencing the burden of proof is only preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt! We didn't know how she died. . .so. You don't have to know that to convict. They bought the drowning story, without any evidence. . .without it making any logical sense. The DT could have said she died from complications of Alzheimer's and they would have went with that. . .cause they didn't have any concrete proof of how she died. But is that reasonable? No. . .we all know that toddler's don't die from complications of Alzheimer's. .. just like we know that toddlers that accidentally drown in the family pool don't end up in the woods wrapped in garbage bags and duct tape. . .after spending a few hot days in their Mom's car. Knowing how or why a victim died has NOTHING to do with the burden of proof. It certainly helps, but it's not required. 
