No, a jury doesn't find a defendant "innocent."
However, when someone who makes his living in the justice system refuses to accept a verdict, it is very troubling.
Exactly 2 people know what happened in the accuser's room that night. No one else does. That's why we have a jury.
If someone refuses to accept the verdict, he or she is undermining the entire judicial system. "Well, he might have gotten off, but I think he was guilty anyway." Really, based on what? Personal opinion.
See, if you refuse to accept the outcome of the trial you are, in essence, pronouncing judgment on Jordan Johnson as an individual. Unless you sat through the entire trial (as a juror) you did not hear all of the evidence...did not see the witnesses' demeanor, etc. If you are willing to pronounce judgment under those circumstances, we might as well just pick you to decide the fate of all accused defendants.
Arguing that he is not "innocent" or that the jury was wrong, is really just a despicable smear of this young man. OJ did not do it, nor did Casey Anthony. If you have a better system, let's hear it (but it cannot just be: you get to decide is guilty).
Of course, all this assumes a fair trial. I have not seen any prosecutor complain about error on the part of Judge Townsend. From following the trial it looks like it was fair, if not even slanted a bit toward the State.
So, if you hear someone saying "they still think he did it," or "he's a rapist," or "a crime was committed that night," ask that person why they seek to undermine the US system of criminal justice. And then ask that person if, when he or she is accused of a crime, what person do they want to decide their guilt or innocence from reading a Twitter feed.
However, when someone who makes his living in the justice system refuses to accept a verdict, it is very troubling.
Exactly 2 people know what happened in the accuser's room that night. No one else does. That's why we have a jury.
If someone refuses to accept the verdict, he or she is undermining the entire judicial system. "Well, he might have gotten off, but I think he was guilty anyway." Really, based on what? Personal opinion.
See, if you refuse to accept the outcome of the trial you are, in essence, pronouncing judgment on Jordan Johnson as an individual. Unless you sat through the entire trial (as a juror) you did not hear all of the evidence...did not see the witnesses' demeanor, etc. If you are willing to pronounce judgment under those circumstances, we might as well just pick you to decide the fate of all accused defendants.
Arguing that he is not "innocent" or that the jury was wrong, is really just a despicable smear of this young man. OJ did not do it, nor did Casey Anthony. If you have a better system, let's hear it (but it cannot just be: you get to decide is guilty).
Of course, all this assumes a fair trial. I have not seen any prosecutor complain about error on the part of Judge Townsend. From following the trial it looks like it was fair, if not even slanted a bit toward the State.
So, if you hear someone saying "they still think he did it," or "he's a rapist," or "a crime was committed that night," ask that person why they seek to undermine the US system of criminal justice. And then ask that person if, when he or she is accused of a crime, what person do they want to decide their guilt or innocence from reading a Twitter feed.
