Justice (part 2)

I wanted to post an update to my prior post, “Justice”. 

My friend finally had his day in court, after more than two years behind bars for a crime he vehemently denies committing.   After two weeks of a “he said/she said” type of trial (since there is a conspicuous lack of evidence) the case finally went to the jury.  For two full days the jury deliberated only to end up at an impasse.  The judge declared a mistrial, and my friend will have to start the whole process over.  My first question was, why would a mistrial be declared after only two days of deliberation? Maybe if the jury was given one more day, they could have reached a verdict. Is one more day too much to ask, given that my friend has spent over two years sitting and waiting? I find this totally unacceptable.  Now he’ll have to wait a bit longer for his fate to be decided.  In many people’s opinion, including mine, the judge should have dismissed the entire case, based on lack of evidence. As one astute observer pointed out, most people who commit this type of crime have a history of doing so, and leave a trail of crimes. My friend has no former record and has never previously been accused. It is all just hearsay and a man should not spend years in prison based on hearsay.

The good news is the judge lowered his bail amount significantly. I’m hoping it is low enough now that my friend will be able to be released until his next trial date.  I don’t know where he’ll go if he is released, since he’s pretty much lost everything since being arrested two years ago.  I suppose anywhere would  be better than where he is now.

So, the story continues.  I will post another update after the next trial.