On Nov 14, 2006, at 7:22 PM, John Thornton wrote:
> A friend just finished jury duty in Federal court and had a
> difficult time reaching a verdict. It was a drug case involving
> transporting meth. The problem she had was that she felt the police
> lied and tampered with some of the evidence to strengthen their
> case but that they did so unnecessarily. She believed the defendant
> was shown to be guilty even without the questionable evidence. Her
> question was basically whether it was acceptable to find a
> defendant not guilty, in spite of believing in his guilt, in order
> to punish the police for lying and altering evidence? I'm curious
> what others think they would do in a similar situation.
I'd look for every excuse I could find to acquit a drug suspect.
Doug