Just like in "Twelve Angry Men", no one of the 12 people knows whether the teenager has committed a crime, but we can still know which side represents justice, because the duty of the jury is this, if the evidence does not stand "reasonable". Doubt", you must be acquitted.
The prosecution has indeed not produced any direct or indirect evidence that can stand up to suspicion, otherwise do you think the jury is a group of idiots? The point is that in this kind of case, everyone wants to convict him, regardless of the evidence. Gangsters, how terrifying, are they allowed to commit crimes outside? So everything Jackie did was not to get the jury to be emotional, but precisely to get them to think with their own sanity. We may not be good people in your eyes, our way of life may make you quite uncomfortable, we may do bad things every day, we may have really committed a crime, but please put aside your feelings and think about it, is the evidence given by the prosecution correct? Does it really prove that we are guilty of the crime we are accused of? If not, please acquit us, no matter how badass we look.
The jury did their duty and give them a thumbs up!
PS inexplicably thinks RICO is quite strange: according to the way of life in Italy or Arab countries, as long as one person in the family commits a crime, they are all at risk of being prosecuted~~~~~
View more about Find Me Guilty reviews
