Letters to the Editor
-
Amerigo and you examples of jury behavior
There is a case where your examples don't fit, and I assume what the person you were replying to was referring to - jury nullification. When you believe that the person committed the acts but either don't believe that they should be punished because you support their cause or you believe the government process is so corrupt that you vote not guilty anyway. However, unless you lie in jury selection, that's supposed to winnow these folks out.
For the people who are upset that some of her alleged co-conspirators testified against her for reduced sentences - happens all the time. They would have been asked on either direct, or cross, depending on whether the prosecution wanted to avoid having the defense bring it up first, whether they made a deal for the testimony. The defense would have accused them of perjury in return for the testimony - regardless of whether the prosecution objected and it was upheld, the jury would have heard it - unless the lawyer was brain dead. As Amerigo pointed out, it is then up to the jury to decide who they thought was telling the truth.
I think people just have a basic difference of opinion here. Some people believe some or all of the following (a) some actions will never be criminal because they support a cause some people believe in; (b) if someone claims the government railroaded someone, you were omniscient and they did, and don't dig any further, especially if you support the cause; (c) women are apparently not, at all, responsible for any criminal actions they take part in if they are young, reasonably attractive, support causes people like and can claim they were 'duped' by a man; and (d) if a jury renders a verdict you didn't like, even if you weren't there to see the evidence, they were stupid.