A 20-year-old juror says that he could not sleep after convicting a defendant of being an armed habitual criminal and battery of a police officer. He later called the conviction a “cover-up.” Nonetheless, the defendant was convicted and will go to jail, though he may have grounds for an appeal.
An altercation between the defendant and the police officers occurred after the defendant ran into an apartment complex. The defendant was on probation for a drug-related crime and subject to a curfew. Police followed the defendant into the apartment complex and fired on him. They claimed he had a gun, a fact which the defendant denied. The prosecution failed to present fingerprint evidence tying the defendant to the gun.
It remains unclear why the juror voted to convict the defendant when he clearly believed that he was innocent. However, it gives you a sense of how our jury system works and why, sometimes, defendants are convicted based only on the say-so of the police.