Since the first charging of the case involving George Zimmerman, I have respectfully disagreed with many friends (including on this blog) about the case which I believed was clearly over-charged as second degree murder. The trial has only magnified those concerns and I believe that the jury will acquit Zimmerman and would be correct in doing so. The reason is simple: reasonable doubt. Putting aside the understandable anger and the heavy overlay of social and racial issues in the case, an objective review in my opinion leaves reasonable doubt on every element of the charge, even the lesser charge of manslaughter which the court has allowed the jury to consider. First, let me begin by saying something that should not have to be said. I am not accepting Zimmerman’s account and I do not know what happened that night. I am not condoning Zimmerman’s actions. Rather, I am looking at the facts and I cannot see a single material fact on the elements that does not create a reasonable doubt as to what occurred. We don’t make social judgment or guesses on verdicts. While many have criticized Zimmerman for following Martin, citizens are allowed to follow people in their neighborhood. That is not unlawful. It was also lawful for Zimmerman to be armed. The question comes down to who started the fight and whether Zimmerman was acting in self-defense.
The facts on these questions are no more clear today than they were on that tragic night. Zimmerman’s account has been met by an alternative account from the prosecution. However, there is no objective basis to clearly reject one over the other. In other words, they remain in equipoise and that is not a sufficient basis for a conviction.
I was frankly astonished that the prosecution did not have any stronger evidence and, as I mentioned earlier, I believe that the court failed to address the withholding of evidence from the defense.
Many people were highly critical of the prosecution for putting on what seemed like a case for Zimmerman. The reason is that there was not a strong case for conviction on the basis that Zimmerman did not “reasonably believe” that the gunshot was “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to himself. Various witnesses said that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and said that they believed that he was the man calling for help. He had injuries. Not serious injuries but injuries to his head from the struggle. Does that mean that he was clearly the victim. No. It does create reasonable doubt on the question of the struggle.
There is also no evidence as to who threw the first punch or committed the first physical act in the struggle. I do not understand how, under the standard jury instruction, a juror could simply assume Zimmerman was the aggressor. Zimmerman was largely consistent in his accounts and his account was consistent with some witnesses. After 38 prosecution witnesses, there was nothing more than a call for the jury to assume the worst facts against Zimmerman without any objective piece of evidence. That is the opposite of the standard of a presumption of innocence in a criminal trial.
Rather than charge manslaughter, the prosecutors seemed to yield to the political pressure and charge second degree murder. Under that charge, they needed to show Zimmerman had the intent to kill and did so with “depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will.” They fell substantially below that mark. Witnesses said that both men used derogatory terms, including Martin’s reference to Zimmerman as a “cracker.” The first witness for the prosecution was in my view a disaster and admitted to previously lying under oath. The prosecution witnesses largely portrayed a consistent account from Zimmerman and even favorable views of him from some witnesses.
In the end, the only way I could see a conviction would be to discard the standard of a presumption of innocence and embrace the invitation of the prosecution to assume every fact against Zimmerman despite conflicting testimony from witnesses, including the prosecution’s own witnesses. Even for manslaughter, the jury had to find that George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin but was told that “a killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful.” The jury instruction on deadly force states in part:
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
This lesser charge still brings the jury back to the question of who started the fight and how the fight unfolded.
The prosecution consistently overplayed its hand in a desperate attempt to overcome its own witnesses. For example, with an officer stating repeated that Martin’s Dad said no to the question of whether it was his son calling for help, the prosecution insisted that he was saying “no” as a type of denial of reality in hearing the tape. His dad said that he had to hear the tape about two dozen times to change his mind. Even after being criticized by many experts for overcharging the case, the prosecution proceeded to make a demand at the end of the trial that the jury be able to convict Zimmerman on a different crime: third degree murder based on child abuse. The judge wisely rejected that demand but allowed the jury to consider manslaughter as a lesser charge.
The instruction on reasonable doubt given to the jury is as follows:
George Zimmerman has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe George Zimmerman is innocent. The presumption stays with George Zimmerman as to each material allegation in the Information through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.
To overcome George Zimmerman’s presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which George Zimmerman is charged was committed and George Zimmerman is the person who committed the crime.
George Zimmerman is not required to present evidence or prove anything.
Whenever the words “reasonable doubt” are used you must consider the following:
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find George Zimmerman not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.
It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.
A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of George Zimmerman may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.
If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find George Zimmerman guilty.
Here are all of the jury instructions.
There is, in my view, no objective basis for an abiding conviction of guilt on either second degree murder or manslaughter. The prosecution’s case remains more visceral than legal in effectively asking for a presumption of guilt. Zimmerman should be acquitted on that basis.
I have found the photo of Trayvon that was taken after gz was finished with him and before the officers did cpr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4S2ozDDoDY
Testimony of officer Raimondo
The photo is at 9:58
Randyjet and Allysa, The photo posted by SM was taken after Trayvon was declared dead by the EMTs. I have been unable to find the photo taken by Johnathon (found correct spelling in my search for the photo he took)
After watching most of the testimony in the GZ case, I find the following appropriate and it helps in knowing that Rachel Jeantel was not alone in responding, “that’s so retarded” in response to one of West’s questions near hour 6 or 7 of her cross examination. Enjoy.
How Do Court Reporters Keep Straight Faces?
These are from a book called Disorder in the Courts and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while the exchanges were taking place.
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, ‘Where am I, Cathy?’
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?
WITNESS: July 18th.
ATTORNEY: What year?
WITNESS: Every year.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?
WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can’t remember which.
ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?
WITNESS: Forty-five years.
_________________________________
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget..
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
___________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn’t know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
____________________________________
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He’s 20, much like your IQ.
___________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you shitting me?
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Getting laid
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children , right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death..
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.
___________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I’m going with male.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor , how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral…
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 PM
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question?
______________________________________
And last:
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No..
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
New Black Panthers Are Obama’s Civilian Security Force
Nice points itchinBayDog.
On the bigger picture I believe & the evidence strongly suggest that the fascist Obama & his crew have used this Z/M case & others & continue to do so to “intentionally incite insurrection, revolt & riots & wars” as a means & a backdoor to deprive the American people of their freedoms & liberties guaranteed by the Constitution’s “Bill of Rights”, with their primary goal of overthrowing the “We the People” govt & replacing it with Clinton’s/Bush’s/Obama’s authoritarian dictatorship type of govt.
Unless there is info that is unknown to the public at this time as to their actions I believe Obama & his aides are actively engaged in Treason.
If we were to trace back comments of facebook, twitter & the internet to those that are inciting riots over Z/M case how many are from Obama operatives.
We know both Obama & Bush have been caught using that tactic.
Malisha, did you actually just make a “His Mamma so ugly” joke? Sweet.
Itchy Canine:
The jurisdictions I’ve practiced in all have similar “prior inconsistent statement” jury instructions. I’d be very surprised if it wasn’t given since several of the witnesses seemed to have at least somewhat changed their testimony from prior statements. In a nut-shell these instructions say prior statements (if inconsistent with in-court testimony )can be used to call into doubt the veracity of in-court testimony BUT can not be used as substantive evidence. The exception to the rule is when the prior statement was given under oath (typically at a deposition, preliminary hearing, or before a grand jury). In this case the prior inconsistent statement can be used as substantive evidence (i.e. If the witness said the shirt was red prior statement, the jury can use this as actual evidence that the shirt was red, and not just evidence that the witness might be full of crap (which would be the available use of the prior statement if not given under oath))
Zimmerman of coarse did not testify. However, all jurisdictions that I am aware of (and certainly his prior statements came into evidence during this trial) allow most of the hearsay statements of a criminal defendant to come into evidence. The instruction you alluded to mentioning “coercion” typically tells the jury to consider all the surrounding circumstances when a statement is made, not just coercion. In this sense minor inconsistencies made be explained by nervousness, a lack of time to reflect, coercion or a lack of coercion. As a lawyer, I find things like the jury instructions conference to be one of the more interesting things to listen to. I heard some of it this week on the radio. With the exception of the State’s desire to have a child abuse instruction (seeking 3rd degree murder) there wasn’t anything unusual that I heard. The defense objection to a lesser included instruction was a little ridiculous, and would only make sense if you were familiar with criminal trials. I assume their heated objection was purely to make the Zimmerman family have confidence that they were fighting as hard as they could. I doubt it was for the media since every talking-head show has a panel of lawyers who know that a legally proper lesser-included charge will be given on either parties request. I’ve had plenty of trials where as the defense we were the ones asking for the lesser included instruction. The party more concerned with hedging the bets is usually the one requesting the lessor included.
Dog, punks are not illegal. In your world, if they are made illegal and it is made a capital offense, you still have to put the state through the thoroughly unnecessary trouble of “due process,” oh damn and why do we good dogs have to bother with it, I know.
But on another matter, this particular son of a butch [seems that is more accurate than I realized, seeing mamma’s testimony] was defending “his” neighborhood (he hadn’t paid rent!) from someone who wasn’t threatening it EXCEPT by being Black. But you keep thinking like that. You live in a gated community in Florida, which is exactly where you belong.
I listened to the fat lady sing last night and heard no jury instruction on the statements of the defendant made outside of court which were not under oath. There was verbage about coercion and what not but nothing about statements made not under oath. Those instructions undermine his right not to testify under oath at trial. The cautionary instruction was not enough.
The undersized jury of his non peers is getting fed as I write here and will be back deliberating soon. The race thing is being played out by the media in a remarkably shallow fashion. You have these black commentators in favor of dead guy and then others sort of standing for the notion of a fair trial but nobody standing up for self defense or stand your ground or defense of the neighborhood. For those of you who believe in the race thing then you are missing the punk thing and if you allow punks to run your neighborhood then its coming to a theatre near you.
http://gawker.com/this-courtesy-of-msnbc-is-trayvon-martins-dead-body-753370712
Most likely the verdict will be acquittal, and this may be because of the jury following the same argument as Professor Turley above, but more likely due to white anti-Negro racism after all the dead guy is black, the shooter is white and the jury consists of five whites and a Hispanic who would in most instances be considered white though perhaps a bit woggy.
Although white anti-Negro racism in the US has been decreasing over the last 160 years the damaging effects it has on Negroes has not decreased nearly as much. The relation between intensity of racism and intensity of damage caused is non linear. The harm is channeled and amplified by institutions which work by collective action for example the law. Consider a jury of white people, any one member acting alone might be able to come to a correct verdict, but when surrounded by others with similar prejudices is likely to agree on a different verdict.
Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow, Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness shows that at each stage of the legal process Blacks fare worse than whites against whom there is similar evidence. This means that the differential harm compounds up the chain of legal steps from investigation, to charging by police, to charging by prosecutors, to plea bargains offered, to charges actually leveled if the case goes to trial to the bias which will make jurors vote guilty for the factually innocent to the length of sentence that a judge decides.Although Blacks and Whites use and trade drugs at similar rates, the years of imprisonment per Black is much higher than the same ratio for Whites.
Randyjet and Allysa,
There is more than one photo. The first one was taken by neighbor Jon before the police arrive. It shows Trayvon face down, his arms under his body. Officer Raimondo turned the body over and did breathing. He was joined by Officer Ayallo (sp) who did chest compressions after they sealed the bullet hole with a plastic bag. When the EMTs arrived they hooked up to a monitor and declared him dead. Photos were taken of the body. He was covered with a yellow tarp and more photos were taken.
The photo that’s pertinent is the first one but we don’t know what GZ did to the body after shooting him. He says he got on top of him and spread his hands. This can’t be true b/c Trayvon’s hands were under him. Witnesses saw GZ on top of him but, due to the darkness, were unsure what he did.
Thank you bettykath for the details which I was unable to see since I have other things to do. I now understand why the prosecution could not offer any scenario for their side.
I will be seriously disappointed if George Zimmerman is not convicted of manslaughter at least on the basis that Zimmerman’s pursuit of Travon Martin can quiet reasonably be seen as threatening and justification for Travon to make a preemptive attack if this is indeed what happened.
However we only have Zimmerman’s account to say that Travon attacked first. The evidence of Rachael Jeantel is that over the phone she heard Zimmerman coming upon Martin and not the reverse as Zimmerman claimed. She then heard Travon ask “Why are you following me?”, to which Zimmerman does not reply instead asking his own question “what are you doing here?”. Next she hears Travon saying “get off” which suggests that Zimmerman grabbed hold of Travon Martin possibly attempting to arrest him after which the phone disconnects.
Any reasonable person should see Zimmerman laying hands on Martin as being an attack justifying a counter attack.
One other point, Zimmerman’s account of what Martin said has an air of unreality, it sounds suspiciously like something made up, a white man’s idea of how black teenagers talk
You’re most welcome, Steve.
Gene H.
Thanks for all the information! I really do appreciate the time you took to fix my misconceptions.
Steve,
The common law rule is that in the assertion of self-defense, the defendant bears the burden of proof. This is the law in Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia. The non-traditional rule is that the defendant must produce enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt of his guilt or the state must prove that he did not act in self-defense. This is the law in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Virginia, but really it is a distinction without a difference because the state bears the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self-defense when that is presented as an affirmative defense regardless to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Self-defense is still an affirmative defense.
It’s only misleading if you don’t understand the nature of affirmative defenses and think they hinge upon who bears the burden of proof.
They do not.
As stated above, affirmative defenses hinge upon mitigation or negation of culpability/liability by operation of law regardless of the truth of the matter asserted.
Gene H.
Thanks for the clarification.
When I think of affirmative defenses, I think of assertions that must be proven by the defense by the preponderance of the evidence. I guess my assumption in that regard is incorrect. I wasn’t trying to make a purely semantic argument.
I appreciate the information included in your response.
My main point stands, however. Most jurisdictions don’t burden shift when the defense makes a self defense claim. Florida is in the large majority in this regard.
Consequently, I think referring to self-defense as an affirmative defense when it doesn’t really function like most affirmative defenses function (as regards the burden of proof/evidence) is somewhat misleading.
Steve,
Do you know what an affirmative defense is? An affirmative defense is one in which the defendant introduces evidence which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal or civil liability even if it is proven (or admitted as it is in this case) that the defendant committed the alleged acts. Self-defense (as well as entrapment, insanity, necessity, laches, tolling of the statute of limitations, failure to state a cause of action, waiver or estoppel, failure to mitigate damages, etc. – literally hundreds of them) is an affirmative defense. In most jurisdictions, if you do not raise an affirmative defense in your answer, you are barred from raising it later. For example see California Code of Civil Procedure §431.30(b)(2). An affirmative defense is not a “rebuttal” in anything other than the broad sense of being a form of evidence that is/will be presented to contradict or nullify other evidence that has been/will be presented by the prosecution (or the plaintiff in civil litigation).
An affirmative defense is an answer to charges.
A rebuttal at trial is when either the prosecutor (or plaintiff) or defendant brings direct evidence or testimony which was not anticipated. The opposing side is then given a specific opportunity to rebut it. In rebuttal, the rebutting party may generally bring witnesses and evidence which were not declared before trial so long as they serve to rebut the prior evidence. Rebuttal is a chance to prove an assertion is not true (or evidence is insufficient).
Contrast this to an affirmative defense in which the truth of the matter asserted does not apply to negate or mitigate criminal or civil liability; it is negated or mitigated by operation of law.
But thanks for the semantic argument.
It gave a chance to make that distinction for people who may not know the difference.
Gene H.
“You are correct. I forgot Florida is an exception in shifting the burden of proof on self-defense claims to the state. Mea culpa.”
This too is false. In nearly every jurisdiction self-defense isn’t actually an affirmative defense but a rebuttal. Where states tend to differ is on the duty to retreat.
In Massachusetts for instance, where the right to self defense isn’t as expansive, the jury instruction reads as follows:
“A person is allowed to act in self-defense. If evidence of self-defense is present, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. In other words, if you have a reasonable doubt whether or not the defendant acted in self-defense, your verdict must be not guilty.”
Of course, there are multiple requirements of a self-defense claim, and all the prosecution has to do is prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one of those requirements is not met. That’s where the Florida self-defense law’s lack of a retreat requirement makes it tougher to overcome reasonable doubt.
“There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supersedes all other courts.” -Mahatma Gandhi
The Sadness Lingers
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: July 12, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/opinion/blow-the-sadness-lingers.html?hp&_r=0
One thing still hanging in the air when the lawyers in the George Zimmerman trial finished their closing arguments was sadness — heavy and thick, the choking kind, like acrid smoke.
Some questions will never be answered. And some facts will never be altered — chief among them, that there is a dead teenager with a hole in his heart sleeping in a Florida grave, a fact that never had to be.
Zimmerman told Sean Hannity last year that his shooting of Trayvon Martin was “God’s plan” and that if he could do it all over he would do nothing different. (Later in the interview, Zimmerman equivocated a bit on the topic without identifying what specifically he would change.)
I don’t pretend to know the heart of God or the details of his “plans,” but I hasten to hope that he — or she — would value life over death, that free will is part of a faithful walk, that our mistakes are not automatically postscripted as part of a divine destiny.
I would also hope that Zimmerman, having sat through his murder trial in the presence of the dead teen’s grieving parents, might answer Hannity differently. Maybe the answer he gave last year was part of a legal defense. Maybe now he would have more empathy.
Somewhere, behind the breastbone, where the conscience can speak freely without fear of legal implications or social condemnation, surely there can be an admission that, if he’d done some things differently — like staying in his vehicle and not following the young man — Martin would still be alive today.
That’s why the sadness lingers. Martin will never be free from the grave, and Zimmerman will never be free from his role in assigning Martin that fate. The two are forever linked, across life and death, across bad decisions and by opposite ends of a gun barrel. A life you take latches onto you.
For the rest of us, the questions are:
What happens when the legal verdict is rendered and the social cause continues?
Is this case a springboard to high-level discussions about police procedures and the presumptions of guilt and innocence, or will it be a moment in which cultural constructs of biases and presumptions are calcified?
Do we need a clean, binary narrative of good guys and bad guys to draw moral conclusions about right and wrong?
Should your past or what you wear or how you look subtract from your humanity and add to the suspicion you draw?
Can we think of bias in the sophisticated way in which it operates — not always conscious and not always constant, but rising and then falling like rancid water at the bottom of a sour well?
And this, too, is why the sadness lingers. There is a mother who will never again see her son’s impish smile or feel his warm body collapsing into her open arms. There is a father who won’t be able to straighten his son’s tie or tell him “You missed a spot” after a shave. There is a brother who will never be able to trade jokes and dreams and what-ifs with him well into the night, long after both should be asleep. The death of a child blasts a hole into the fabric of a family, one that can never truly be mended. I refuse to believe that was God’s plan for Martin’s family.
The sadness also lingers because so many parents and siblings and friends and sympathizers look on in horror at the prospect of a scary precedent — that some may walk away from this trial believing that they should do nothing different from what Zimmerman did, and that the law may either endorse or allow inadvisable actions that could lead to such an end.
Unarmed teenagers should not end up dead. I believe that most people would agree. This case, however, is about whether an unarmed teenager can engage an armed person — one who admits to having pursued him — in such a way that the teenager become responsible for his own death.
The jury has to ponder and decide that. Only Zimmerman and Martin truly know the answer; one refused to testify, the other couldn’t.
Whatever the verdict in this case is, it must be respected. The lawyers presented the cases they had, presumably to the best of their abilities, and the jurors will presumably do their best to be fair.
But no one can ease the sadness.
As Mahatma Gandhi once said: “There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supersedes all other courts.”
In that court, it is hard to avoid righteous conviction. Maybe that’s part of God’s plan.