CNN’s legal commentator, Jami Floyd attributes the jury’s verdict in the Joseph Bearden trial to a growing understanding of the presumption of innocence. That may be, and I hope it is true, but I wonder if the conviction on lesser charges might not have been due to the judge in the trial.

The jury instructions in the Bearden trial must have listed “lesser and included charges” other than first-degree murder and armed robbery, because the jury found Bearden guilty of second-degree murder and auto theft. In my opinion—and I am not a lawyer—justice is better served by leaving juries such options. Over-zealous prosecutors tend to over-charge offenses. In the trial in which I served as a juror, the judge clearly colluded with the prosecution to present us with an outrageous charge (kidnapping). Juries faced with no option but guilt or innocence in such situations are more likely to struggle with their verdict.

Over-charging is what freed Michael Jackson, in my opinion, and is what hung the jury in the first Phil Spector trial.

If judges and lawyers expect jurors to return appropriate verdicts, they need to do as the judge in this case did: give the jurors appropriate instructions and charges.

A Sidebar: I found an ad for this peculiar database today:

http://www.verdictsearch.com/index.jsp

It appears to be a database primarily of civil verdicts with an emphasis on monies awarded. I’m interested in learning whether there’s a similar criminal verdict database. It would be useful for discovering trends such as the one Ms. Floyd suggested might be developing (namely, a greater respect for the presumption of innocence).