Interesting. Unless it’s changed since my mother was a juror, here in England jurors are not allowed to discuss cases.
That rule definately does not apply in the states, qts. (Or maybe it does in some states, but none that I am directly aware of) Jurors here talk about cases all the time.
I’ve only served on a civil case, but I also think you did the right thing fruitbat. Based on the evidence as you described it, I think you did the only thing you could. Don’t feel guilty about doing the job you were instructed to do and doing it as best you could. Had you convicted in spite of the evidence (or lack thereof) you would have done a great disservice to the defendant.
Remember, innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Back that up, right here, right now. That is one of the worst groundless claims you have ever made against anyone.
No, the problem is that they do it the first time; they, like a lot of people, should have been raised better.
Don’t edit my posts to change my meaning; I said raped and beaten.
Again, BACK THAT UP. Don’t try that misquote and misrepresent game of yours on my quotes. The question is whether or not a person should be convicted of any crime without credible evidence, not whether or not you are upset.
Why should the man be punished for a crime of which he was not convicted?
No. You can disagree with me, but don’t misrpresent me.
I am beginning to suspect you are just some cranky old man posting to give feminists a bad name.
That seems a mite unfair. Why shouldn’t Susanann be a female head-case? 
Anyway, as you’ll find out if you dig a little, Susanann thinks armed-woman justice is the only kind worth bothering with, because, yanno, the police and the courts and the prisons can’t be trusted to do the job right, and your experience of her debating technique isn’t untypical. Putting words into your mouth and then “agree to disagree”, already!
Reference the OP, it’s possible that what the judge was cross about was that such a flimsy case ended up in court, and as for what the prosecutor would have liked to say about the defendant’s prior form, I think it’s a fundamental principle of justice that if you’re in court charged with A, the prosecution has to come up with a case that proves beyond reasonable doubt that you did A - not merely that you did, or might have done, B at some time in the past.
Fruitbat, I have done a lot of jury duty (the system of choosing jurors in Sweden is different, we are elected and serve for longer times) and sometimes it is very hard to come to a decision.
I think that the fact that you are thinking about this and feel a bit of remorse shows that you are taking your duty seriously.
Certainly sounded like the defendant wasnt up to much… and his girlfriend was clearly pushing things. From the info you had… you did the right thing.
You might be feeling badly thou from seeing what human beings can do and accuse each other from doing. Its never nice to see this kind of thing… or the poor conditions these people live in.
fruitbat you did the right thing. I’ve served on jury duty a couple of times. My first case was really disturbing and sad. A man was accused of assaulting, abusing and raping a two year old girl. In all honesty, I didn’t want to serve on this case, but ultimately I was chosen as one of the jurors. We only heard one day of testimony, and as ridiculous as some of the witnesses for the prosecution were, there WAS physical evidence to back up the case. Long story short, the defendent pled out before we got to continue the rest of the case. Based on the testimony and evidence we were presented, we were ready to find him guilty. Our disgust was evident when the judge informed us of the lesser charges he had pled to. The only small light was this was his second strike, and in this state, third strike and you’re out.
My second case was having to do with a woman driving on prescription drugs. There were witnesses to her very erratic driving, she refused any drug, B.A.C. tests etc. We heard the evidence of her medical problems, but…we called bullshit on some of the stuff she testified to. It was common sense stuff. We were diligent in following all of the rules and convicting on only the evidence presented in court. We felt somewhat bad, but we had to find her guilty. In the end, we knew we did the right thing.
Again, ya done good, and until someone sits in a juror’s seat, they will never understand what jurors go through to come to their decision. You followed the law (quirky as it sometimes is) and you made your decision based on evidence, not feelings. That’s what jurors are supposed to do.
Yep, you did the right thing fruitbat. Even if your gut told you the guy was guilty, your job as a juror is to impartially decide if the evidence presented in court proved him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It sounds like you did a fantastic job of that.
If all jurors went with their gut, a lot of innocent people would be punished. Guts are unreliable. 
The prosecution is supposed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt about the specific crime they are charging the defendent with. Talking about prior instances would only serve to bias the jury’s ability to decide the strength of the evidence for that particular case.
I’ll just add to the chorus and say that you did exatly the right thing Fruitbat. From what you have related as evidence from the trial I can’t imagine a jury convicting.