Comments about ‘Jury acquits Orem man in tot's death’

typcial police work, they assume a stereotype and they stop investigating

what stereotype?

That little boy is adorable. This just breaks my heart.

It is a relief to hear that this man was acquitted. I read the article and felt justice was served with the reasonable doubt Mr. T was the cause of this young child's death. The charges were not proven, so the jury must have been clear on the testimonies that warranted the verdict. It would have been a tragedy for him to have been convicted and not at fault. Perhaps the former defendant can now get some counseling to manage some of his anger and inability to cope with the stress of a baby crying. This will remain with him until he can resolve his behavioral issues. I wish him well and to be successful to move forward. Perhaps the former injuries can be investigated as to the cause. There are a lot of unanswered questions. My heartfelt condolences to the child's mother. This has to be difficult with her loss. Her son looks like such an angel who must be dearly missed by his kin.

WHat a tragedy. I think the jury did the right thing; it sounds like there was enough contradictory testimony to throw doubt into a homicide charge. I would hate for someone to spend their life in prison when it wasn't proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. This doesn't mean he didn't do it and if he did there is further judgment to come. What doesn't change is the death of this sweet boy, a mom who lost a child, and a lifetime of "what might have been"s.

With only a few facts prosecutors will only search and seek out and create evidence and theories to prove their personal theory.

Investigating should be on going and continual through any crime and trial.

Prosecutors have become adept with creative crimes by omission of evidence and facts. There have been hundreds of cases in america where indisputable evidence, mostly DNA, have proven wrongful incarceration and a lifetime of persecution.

Then backroom negotiated justice using threats and intimidation and promises are too common and this is an injustice.

What really hurts justice is that all lawyers are working for the courts, not their clients. Many defense lawyers are too eager to get it over with and get their money with no regard for their clients guilt or innocence. Trial and due process are nasty words in the legal system, but the jury system works if they let it.

I wish him in jail for murder because that is where he belongs. "Side of caution" what are you thinking. Your tolerance now extends to a murderer. You make me ill. Bleeding hearts such as you are part of the problem with our justice system.

A few points in rebuttal:
First, you can't expect investigations to continue throughout the trial, everything needs to be finished before the trial starts.
Second, your cynicism is not well founded. Most lawyers are very honest and ethical and are trying to do their best. And "all" lawyers do not work for the court.
Third, the prosecutors do the best they can. They go ahead with the evidence gathered by the police. If they feel it is enough, then they proceed and the jury decides the ultimate verdict. That is how the system is supposed to work.
Finally, you obviously know nothing about defense attorneys, most are very passionate and work for the benefit of their clients.

The defense did a clever job of creating "reasonable doubt," but I think the jury got rolled on this one.

Thanks for providing some rationale to your stance. Oh - that's right - you didn't. You sound like the only raving maniac on these postings. 'Tolerance', or beyong the shadow of a doubt?

Wow - where did THAT come from? Enlighten us.

Hardly. We were very clear on other choices, the prosecution did not prove the homicide charge.

Defense? defense? really are you serious. Crafty words and language that have even snaked gullible readers on this article. Bet these readers are the same people who oppose the death penalty and fight for prisoner "rights."

I tripped once and dropped our baby partially landing on him. He was 2 months old. I weigh 220 pounds, the child cried for about 10-15 minutes and was fine.

This man beat the life out of this child and we can only hope that one day justice is served for this deceased child.

Another point, girlfriend should maybe have acted more responsibly. Why leave your precious child with someone who had demonstrated uncontrolled behavior before.

Amazing this jury was so gullible but apparently from reading these posts they are not alone.

I hope this guy reaps what he sows.

You are clearly not an attorney. You also watch too much tv. Most attorneys, especially in Utah, are not "eager to get it over with". Clients need advice, and attorneys give it. TV gives you the impression the attorneys are somehow in charge of what happens in a client's case. The reverse is true. Attorneys give options, and clients choose their fate.

If I served on the jury I would have made the same decision since there isn't enough evidence to prove that he did it deliberately and therefore a not-guilty verdict on this count was necessary but they also made the right decision on the obstruction charge since he was obviously guilty of that charge.

As for his attorney comment about him being innocent. There is no evidence that he is innocent and it is not the role of a jury to determine innocence but only guilt and they determine that he was NOT GUILTY and did not say that they believed he was INNOCENT.

Whether or not the jury felt he was not innocent doesn't change the fact that they ruled him not guilty. They shouldn't be blamed... maybe evidence was limited, maybe the prosecution didn't present the case well enough.

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that now, nothing will happen to this man for slaughtering a child. According to several articles, all the medical experts for both the prosecution, and the defense felt this was a homicide. They disagreed on timing with the fatal injury.

This man murdered a child. And he walked away from that courtroom smiling.

Justice?

Think of this child's father. The child's mother put him in the situation, and the child's father couldn't do a thing about it, even though he thought his son was being abused.

Fair?

Read the story again. Your answer is there!

I love how you all who are thinking he's innocent are acting like you were there. Well I was there and there is so much of his history that the jury didn't get to hear. He's beat people before and the sad thing is, he'll do it again. He may be able to shave and put on a suit for the jury, but that doesn't make him innocent. It makes him a good actor. The jury got snowed.