I agree. Have you ever been on a jury? It's not nearly as cut and dried as people think. It really comes down to a judgement call.

I was on a jury for a corrupt cop and we voted to convict and the judge came back afterward and said that basically we had made the wrong decision, probably, legally, but that it was still a good decision, more or less, as the guy was indeed corrupt. But the evidence was not what it really should have been. But, in aggregate, it was pretty clear the guy was corrupt.

John Binder put it this way, "...in this case the jury believed Nick Calabrese."

And that is pretty much what it boils down to, I suppose.