Acquitted but not exonerated.
More years ago than I care to count, I was chosen to serve on a criminal case jury.
The case was appropriately tawdry; drug-related assault and armed robbery in a poorly light parking lot and other related criminal charges.
The trial took 3 days and once the case was sent to those of us on the jury, we took another complete day to deliberate and render a verdict.
We were solemn and conscientious in our obligation to consider the facts as presented to us and the law as explained to us. The deliberation was calm and considerate; we all listened closely and questioned each other about why we came to our individual conclusions.
We acquitted the defendant; found him "not guilty."
After we were thanked and discharged by the judge in the case, several of us found ourselves in the elevator with the prosecutor.
"How'd we do?" asked one of my juror companions. The prosecutor tried to conceal her irritation but then filled us in on a bunch of evidence that had not permitted by the judge to be introduced into the trial, including an admission of guilt by the defendant.
If we had known about the suppressed information we probably would have convicted.
The elevator was filled with chagrined and embarrassed silence for the rest of the trip to the ground floor. We did our part with the information we were given but the information was incomplete, even though we had subpoenas and witnesses.
After that jury experience, I think understand the concept of acquitted but not exonerated. And I wholeheartedly endorse the idea that Trump was acquitted but not exonerated. Because been there, done that.
The only difference between me and a Republican Senator is I feel bad about the time I did it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
