Sorry pal, you didn't prove your case beyond the shadow of a doubt.
fly on the wall: "gee, the planted handgun worked before...."
In plain English Cooley got his a$$ kicked. In plain Chinese Cooley lost his Cooley. In plain Russian Cooley asski kickski.
This was the defence move to hold the jury as long as possible. Get one on ethe jury to be on Blake's side and the others will do any thing to go home.
Sorry pal, you didn't prove your case beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Most politicians are lawyers.
I know I am going to get flamed hard for this..but I have lost confidence in our jury system..I know I don't have a better answer for it..our judges are totally out of control..but our jury system is sadly unique in our country..no where, not NASA, not our military, no Fortune 500 company, I mean no where do we find the dumbest of the dumb to sit in judgment or make decisions about those groups..yet we routinely ask these same people to sit in judgment of violent and dangerous criminals..I know blake is not going to go on a murder spree..but we need a better system..
Jury nullification?
It's possible that the jury (a single jurist?) thought Blake was justified in some sense.
Jury nullification?
It's possible that the jury (a single jurist?) thought Blake was justified in some sense.
In OJ's case the math was 2+1.999999999 and still they couldn't get to 4. Jury people appear to sleep better without the burden of a conviction.
CA celebrities granted the right to kill.
The simple fact of the matter is that jurors are not supposed to have to be smart. It is not the job of the jurors to 'do the math' as mentioned in an earlier post. In fact, they are not supposed to infer anything on their own.
It is the job of the prosecutor to explain to the jury in terms that any dumb rock can understand why they should vote guilty. It is the job of the prosecutor to do any math needed (or have an expert do if for him) and be able to explain it so that any idiot on the street can understand it. That did not happen in this case.
Prosecution has a weak case, does a louzy job, and blasts the jury -- typical LA prosecutors!
No, it was simple anger at losing and the desire to blame someone else for his failure. Sour grapes would be "I didn't want a conviction anyway because its meaningless."
Sorry, but being an old Aesop fan, misuse of that term really gets to me.
the jury didn't want to believe two witnesses who said Blake asked about having his wife killed, yet they believed Blake, who left his gun back at the restaurant....
know, how many men leave their guns?.......
007 never existed. But Hollywood's got a license to kill, that's for sure.
On every press release the prosecution made, I thought, "If they haven't got more than this, they're stupid to proceed"
He would have been better off not bringing the case to trial, holding off to see if more evidence would pop up in the future. Blake is no serial murderer and represented little threat to be in the populace for the time being.
If there was no trial, it could take years for the mystery to be solved, true. It might never be solved.
But almost-forgotten cold cases are solved all the time by bulldog investigative and forensics work. Sometimes it takes a decade or more for the truth to surface.
Bringing the Blake case to trial with insufficient evidence resulted in him being a free man. On the obverse, NOT bringing him to trial would have had the same result, but at least with a remote, long chance of key evidence surfacing and a later trial.
It was a crap shoot for the prosecutor, he jumped the wrong way with his decision, and unfortunately, the State will never get another shot at the perp in the future.
Leni