I sent the following e-mail letter to the Detroit News in response to the "Not Guilty" verdict in the George Zimmerman trial in Sanford, Florida. Zimmerman was tried for 2nd Degree Murder and Manslaughter in the shooting deal of Trayvon Martin.

Dear Editor:

A jury's finding that a person is "Not Guilty" does not mean that the former defendant didn't do anything wrong. "Not Guilty" doesn't mean that the person's actions were appropriate, that the level of force was consistent with the situation. Further, "Not Guilty" shouldn't suggest to those easily swayed  that they should imitate the former defendant's actions. Simply, "Not Guilty" means that the jury determined that the prosecution, though evidence, did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the elements of the charged crime (s). 

As a citizen and as a criminal justice professional, I have often been surprised, and even astounded, by jury decisions.  The O.J. Simpson murder trial comes immediately to mind, as does the Casey Anthony acquittal.  But I have never said (absent corruption such as jury-tampering) that a jury made the wrong decision. Only jurors listen to every bit of testimony, see every bit of admitted evidence, view face to face every witness, and then discuss, argue and debate the case with fellow jurors during deliberations. I may believe the jury found a guilty person "Not Guilty." But unless I was on the jury, I can't in good faith say the jury made a "wrong" decision. 

Finally, the Double Jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment prohibits the re-prosecution of a an acquitted person for the same offense. 

Our criminal justice system isn't perfect. Certainly, guilty people sometimes go free. But we should accept these imperfections in order to insure that the innocent person isn't falsely convicted.

Thomas E. Page

Los Angeles Police Department, retired

Former Detroit Police Officer