How in the world did they not reach a verdict

[Rickmur]

Here in NJ the trial just ended for Jason Williams the ex NBA player who was charged with manslaughter in the shooting death of his limosine driver. The jury acquited him on aggravated manslaughter, and could not reach a verdict on reckless manslaughter. He was found guilty on 4 other charges related to tampering and covering up evidence.
Williams shot the driver while showing off a shotgun that was loaded during a party as his house. There were other loaded weapons in the house and Williams knew they were all loaded. With this evidence how can a jury not come to a verdict on the reckless homicide charge? The only verdict on this charge should have been guilty. Come on, your playing with a loaded gun that you know is loaded and kill someone. Only in NJ I guess. No I take that back as OJ got off out in Calf. also. Whats with these althelets always getting off, is it thier money? And how does the attorney that defended him really feel after a verdict like this is rendered. Does he have no conceince either?

Just saw on the today show they had 4 of the jurors on. They said it was the prosecutor's fault for charging him with reckless instead of negligent homicide. The shooting was an accident no dought about it but they could not find guilty on recklessness but could have on negligence. Way to go NJ.

[FirstBow]

I think its pitiful!!!
As far as a defense atty. You know everybody has the right to representation.
As far as a consience.............MONEY is the guide.

[Strut&Rut]

I was thinking the same thing, but I knew this would happen when they brought in an expert to say "the gun could have gone off accidentally".

I looked at my wife after I read that, and said, "well, someone still had to put the damn bullets in the chamber...good grief"...

Basically, I think it came down to semantics and wording. The jury probably had no choice the way the law is written. I guess that's what you get when you have 10 different possible degrees of manslaughter charges.