Yeah, but that form does not explain the burden of proof that must be reached to determine guilt with each charge. That is up to the judge. Has this been discussed? Did the jurors understand?
There is a jury instructions form.. I have to find it and post it. There is a definition of Reasonable Doubt. Most of our contention is that reasonable doubt does NOT mean having a reason to doubt.
They seem to have taken the Opening Statements as evidence to provide a doubt. They seem to have taken the word of a convicted, self professed liar to pour doubt over George Anthony who was never a suspect and never proven to be lying. They seem to have used GA as doubt which makes absolutely no sense to me.
And the last 2 LOGICAL questions remain.. 1) Why would anyone make an accident look like murder and 2) Why would she sit in jail for 3 years and wait until day 1 of the trial to claim it was an accident.
As a jury, they were instructed and advised that they can make logical inferences. They were told that circumstantial evidence IS evidence. They seem to have ignored all of that in search of a SMOKING GUN, or otherwise called, the CSI effect. Common sense be d$$$$!