Reply #81: Well, I am one [View All]

[lastliberalintexas]

I disagree with the OP in that there was *some* evidence of guilt, though whether one thinks it is credible evidence is another story. But how you, as a supposed attorney, can claim that there was *overwhelming* evidence is beyond me.

There might be sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict on appeal, but it was in no way overwhelming. The prosecution could not even prove the cause of death for goodness sakes- rather important in a crime which requires a specific and certain mens rea. If the cause of death was poison, it was likely premeditated and intentional. If it was a blow to the head, it could have been in the heat of the moment to justify prosecution for manslaughter or murder 2. Or the cause of death may have even exonerated the husband. We just don't know. And that's just one of many issues unexplained by the prosection.

But I do know that the lack of proof as to cause of death indicates a fairly large hole in the prosecution's case, though it was apparently one that this jury was willing to overlook. But I certainly wouldn't want any of those kinds of people acting as my peers or on one of my juries.