When I heard that the jury in the Carla Hughes trial had asked the judge a question about a fundamental Constitutional right, I knew that at least one juror had never read the U.S. Constitution—and I suspected that the juror had doubts about the prosecution case only because “the prosecution” did not “call” the defendant to the stand. When he or she learned that the prosecution could not call the defendant to the stand, that juror—I suspected—would be inclined to vote for conviction. I was right.

My guess? The sticking point was why no one asked the defendant to explain why she had the apparent murder weapons in her possession at the time of the murder.

I wondered that myself. But I came to the conclusion that there were at least two reasonable, relatively innocent explanations for this undisputed fact:

1. The defendant was persuaded by her boyfriend to borrow the weapons—then he subsequently stole them from her and used them to commit the crime (or to give to a hired hitman) in order to incriminate Ms. Hughes—and that he then returned them to her home before she knew what had happened, or …
2. The defendant conspired with her boyfriend to murder the victim by obtaining weapons that would not incriminate him—and that she later regretted her decision when he accused her of the crime.

In either case, I imagine that Ms. Hughes’ attorneys convinced her to keep her mouth shut out of fear she would be charged either as a co-defendant in first-degree murder or as an accessory. If this is true, it appears to me (unfortunately) that her attorneys’ caution actually led to her conviction.

Why? Because this one fact—that she possessed the weapons—is what convicted her.

Regardless of whether or not the boyfriend was involved in the crime with Ms. Hughes, I truly feel this was a case that ought to have resulted in a not-guilty verdict because of reasonable doubt.

It is a very troubling thought that an innocent person could be convicted of murder and be subject to the death penalty. In fact, it is so awful to contemplate that I am convinced it is time to end this barbarous practice. If Ms. Hughes is innocent, her death will be a horror. If she is implicated but not the actual killer, the death penalty is too harsh and justice will not be served. If she is guilty, a life in prison may be too good for her, but it will ensure that society is protected from her and that she will live a life of endless sorrow.

• Sidebar: I know this will offend many people, and I apologize in advance. But what I don’t understand is why it is legal to have an abortion at 5 months into a pregnancy, but it is illegal to murder a 5-month old fetus. Ms. Hughes was convicted of killing a 5-month old fetus in addition to an adult woman. I think it is particularly grotesque to murder a pregnant woman, but I have a problem executing (killing) a person for murdering a fetus.