Dear Editor,

One of the jurors on the recent Matt Davis child molestation case came out of the juror’s box, heading for the deliberation room, with his mind made up that Davis was guilty on all counts. He was surprised and amazed that the other jurors were not of the same opinion and wanted to deliberate.

He was further amazed that the deliberations went into everything except whether or not the defendant had committed the crimes of which he was charged. Time was spent going over the testimony and extraneous information, rather than whether Davis was guilty.

A compromise verdict was reached after several days. The one obstinate juror who thought Matt was guilty was willing to compromise, admitting that his own judgment could be flawed and realizing that he could bring about a hung jury if he insisted on a finding of “guilty” on all counts. It became obvious during the deliberations that personal prejudices played a big part, as jurors argued their points of views.

One is reminded of the present political situation where liberals and conservatives will not even try to understand each other. I am partially gratified that Matt Davis is being partially punished for crimes for which he was partially convicted. The jury was too lenient. I was that obstinate juror.

Jim Beagle
McKinleyville