Todays WP has a good article explaining the reasoning of the jurors in the Lay/Skilling trial, who delivered an overwhelmingly guilty verdict. I doubted either would be found guilty on a majority of counts, but it is interesting that the testimony of both damned their chances for acquittal.
The article is a good recap, but I am troubled by the juror's quote:
"The jury delivered not-guilty verdicts on all but one of Skilling's 10 insider trading charges. In deciding the answer to each charge, forewoman Smith said, "We went by the judge's instruction: 'Not guilty' means 'not proven.' ""
There is no mention of the contrapositive; guilty means 'proven beyond the shadow of a doubt'.
In any event, the jurors seem dedicated to their task and decision, although their 'closeness' may have led to groupthink, they believe in the verdict they rendered, which was their duty.
No comments:
Post a Comment