- #71
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2023 Award
- 33,293
- 19,809
I just spent more time than I had intended researching this on non-social media. Things are sparse, frankly. Most of what's on the intertubes are people citing very indirect sources and working themselves up in a tizzy. Here are some reported facts that are not to be found on the tizzynet.
1. The jury was not given instructions that they could convict Gilbert on manslaughter. The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent, and that means that the prosecution needs to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Gilbert claims that he was attempting to stop the fleeing car by shooting out the tires. As it happens, the tire was hit, and a fragment from that bullet hit Frango.
3. Defense lawyers offered up multiple defenses (which is their duty), including the one that got everyone worked up. The defendant's own lawyer doesn't think that the jury was convinced by it. Contrary to what one might think by reading Salon or the Huffington Post, juries do not return a legal analysis of their decision.
1. The jury was not given instructions that they could convict Gilbert on manslaughter. The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent, and that means that the prosecution needs to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Gilbert claims that he was attempting to stop the fleeing car by shooting out the tires. As it happens, the tire was hit, and a fragment from that bullet hit Frango.
3. Defense lawyers offered up multiple defenses (which is their duty), including the one that got everyone worked up. The defendant's own lawyer doesn't think that the jury was convinced by it. Contrary to what one might think by reading Salon or the Huffington Post, juries do not return a legal analysis of their decision.