I'm using a little hyperbole there. But seriously, this woman needs to take a pill. I don't think I've ever seen a "legal analyst" or "legal commentator" who is so biased for the state that she can't even admit, in the face of exculpatory evidence, that someone charged by the state with a crime might--gasp!--actually be innocent. Recently, she has really been having fun chastising past jurors and judges who set free defendants who later committed a heinous crime. Never mind the fact that she wasn't present to hear the testimony or personally see the evidence in those cases. In her mind, every last one of those jurors and judges should be hanging their head in shame. Toward the end of this "commentary",
she asks how jurors in a child molestation trial who acquitted the defendant could look themselves in the mirror now that the defendant has been charged with abducting and murdering a young girl. (In the same article, she chastises federal prosecutors for making a plea deal with Eric Rudolph and settling for four life sentences, instead of seeking the death penalty, even with the very real risk of an acquittal, but that's another story.) I hope those jurors look themselves in the mirror and remind themselves that they took an oath to follow the law and not convict someone unless the offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt--and that they followed that oath. It is this type of argument that makes it so hard to win acquittals in child sex cases. Jurors, even in the face of having a true reasonable doubt, are worried about setting free someone who might
be a child molester and might
hurt another child. I've also never seen Nancy ask how jurors who wrongfully convicted an innocent person can look themselves in the mirror. Not that she would admit that's ever happened.