Our system of jurisprudence sure is confusing. Thank goodness we have televised legal analysts to straighten things out for us.
They've been giving the jurors a lot of airtime for summing up the behind-the-scenes sentiment:
Jurors say prosecutors failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson was guilty, and that's why he was allowed to return home.Really? So what we're saying here is that the prosecution failed to prove that Jackson was guilty, so the jurors decided he was... not guilty. So would it follow that had the prosecutors proven that Jackson was guilty, then the jury would have found him... guilty?