I’m not one to comment on convictions in other states (at least not on a regular basis), but this story caught my eye. Martin Heigden was tried and convicted of Murder 2 for driving his car while intoxicated. He was on the wrong side of the highway and crashed into a limousine, killing a 7-year old girl. The DA opted to go for broke and charged him with murder, instead of the more routine manslaughter. I’m sure everyone can discern the petrinet legal issues on appeal, so I won’t dwell on that. What interested me more was this paragraph:

After the verdict, jurors said they thought Heidgen must have known
what he was doing as he headed in the wrong direction on the parkway
for more than two miles. But they said there were two jurors who did
not agree at first, and tempers on both sides flared.

Ultimately, though, they said they knew what they had to do.

"Once we finally put it on paper, guilty, guilty, it just became so
emotional in that moment," said a juror named Michelle, 38, of
Roosevelt, who would not give her last name. "Once it was sealed, ready
to go downstairs, it was like a big weight off our shoulders, it just
became very emotional for everybody."

Emphasis mine.

    So despite the fact that they were hung on intent, "they knew what they had to do". Mind-boggling. What does that mean, except that they knew they had to return a verdict of guilty on the murder charge? Does that mean that the two dissenting jurors were badgered into changing their vote? Will they come forward?

Am I the only one feeling discomfort from that quote?