Mistrial Declared in Zapata Trial
Jurors had heard testimony and circumstantial evidence. The jurors went into deliberation Friday and continued for 30 hours, but could not agree upon a verdict. The vote was 10-1-1. The majority of the vote was for guilty, but there was one juror who was undecided, and another who would remain with his innocent vote because of a lack of evidence. The jurors were deadlocked. On Monday afternoon Judge Fiedler declared it a mistrial. Now prosecutors are deciding whether or not they should have a re-trial, Linda Zapata says she'll be ready to testify against her father if there is one.
I think that the case needs to be re-tried because I think that a new jury will find him guilty. Hopefully in the new trial they will have some physical evidence to back up the case because I think that it will definitely affect the outcome of the trial.
2 comments:
The Zapata trial brings up many interesting issues in our legal system. In our current system, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution. We have all heard the saying “innocent until proven guilty.” I have personally witnessed a few jury trials and the jury members are instructed to cast a guilty vote if the evidence presented leads the jury to believe that the defendant is guilty “beyond all reasonable doubt.” Therefore, it is difficult to get a jury to agree on a unanimous decision.
The Zapata case is a perfect example of how our legal system works to prevent innocent people from being sent to jail. I do not know the facts of this case, but there were two jurors who did not believe the defendant was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. There must have been disputed facts or testimony throughout the case. There could possibly be a retrial, as the original trial was declared a mistrial. However, I do not necessarily believe this should happen. The defendant was obviously not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, and there seems to be a very probable chance that he is innocent.
I think the Zapata case is a pretty sad trial, and justice needs to be served soon. How a woman can go missing 30 years ago, the body was never found, and no one was ever charges is beyond me. More likely than not I think it was her husband that did it. If he was stalking her after they were separated, I don't see why anyone else would murder her. I can't imagine what kind of position that put their children in.
But that's the beauty of our legal system. Everyone has the right to a fair trial. Whether the person is innocent or guilty, there must be concrete evidence for someone to be sent to jail. In this case, I believe there needs to me a re-trial, and justice has to be served.
Post a Comment