I have no sympathy for a juror that goes on television to state that they didn't have a choice but to find the way she did behind the closed door of the jury room. I saw her interview, and she is playing to the press and the minority groups that are upset with the verdict. What a joke.
If a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they should be found guilty of the crime for which they are charged. If they are not guilty, they are so found, as evidently in this case.
This person has no credibility with me.
The evidence, not the emotion or wishes of anyone involved, is what made the determination. The excuse by many that "Peer" pressure made her change her vote is ridiculous. The evidence was not there for a murder conviction. If it was, she would have, or at least should have, held to her vote and opinion. This woman needs to be careful or she may end up on the wrong end of a liable suit.. and in my opinion, she should.
If she felt he had committed murder, she should have hung the jury or swayed the other jurors by the evidence, and stuck to her opinion. If she truly believed he was guilty, she would have not moved off of that opinion. I've been on a capital murder jury, and held to my opinion against most of the other jury members. It was very difficult, and took us almost two weeks to deliberate.I held to the facts of the case, and stuck to just the evidence. It was a very emotional case. A child killed by a man that was trash. A blight on the community. But emotion has no place in the jury room when you're debating the future of another person's life. I hated the bastard. He was a piece of trash. But he was not guilty of murder. We found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter, which was offered to us as a lesser charge. Did I want to find him guilty of murder? You're damn right I did, I wanted him to fry for what happened, but he wasn't guilty of that charge.
The same, in reverse, goes for this "juror" and she should have stuck to her belief and her opinion, even if it meant a hung jury. But she obviously couldn't because the evidence was not there. This woman, IMHO, is only trying to justify her vote in the jury room, and to prevent being painted as a racist or something else derogatory by the civil rights industry that's making hay out of this case.
The law is the law. The facts are the facts. And, this case is over.