[anonbanker]

Some unsolicited advice: Take Jury Duty.

If you're bright and critical, you will be weeded-out early by prosecutors, and you'll see the type of people the prosecutors want deciding a case.

If you're coy enough to play dumb and get selected, you'll get to see the shallow reasons other jurors choose to declare someone guilty.

I was so personally disturbed by my experience as a juror that I pledged to never accept a jury trial if I was wrongfully indicted; I'd rather take my chances on appeal after letting a judge decide my guilt.

[r8533292]

you are implying that miscarriage of justice took place, without explicitly saying so. would you still make the same insinuations in other controversial cases like minnesota v. chauvin, or in cases where the guilt is so well established the jury is choosing between one lifetime and seven, like in state v. keith gibson (a recent serial killer in philadelphia, not national news)

but also like consider, there's appeals court's opinion (i missed that there was an appeal on my first reading) https://casetext.com/case/commonwealth-v-spone, i read it, if the details presented in the opinion are not substantially different from the facts presented during original trial, i would've also convicted spone of harrasment. so literally if i were on jury duty in this case, i would've had to disagree with you.