"RESPECTING" A VERDICT.

If there is one thing that must be pointed out, before we talk about the RITTENHOUSE VERDICT, is to put to rest that worn out phrase, used by attorneys to mitigate any negative impact that a verdict may have on their reputation or skill is the phrase- "WE MUST RESPECT THE JURIES VERDICT." Guess what, if you define RESPECT in one of the following ways:

- To feel admiration for someone because of their personal qualities, their achievements, or their status, and show this by treating them in a polite and kind way.

- Due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others.

- A feeling of admiring someone or something that is good, valuable, important...

...or define it in some similar way...

You are speaking about, in law, a definition that does not exist. To often, we are led to believe that verdicts rendered, by Judge or Jury, are noble and selfless decisions, that must not be questioned. THERE IS NO FOUNDATION IN LAW THAT REQUIRES THIS. "RESPECTING" A VERDICT, LEGALLY, MAKES NO MORAL/ETHICAL JUDGEMENT ON THE JUSTICE OR INJUSTICE OF THE DECISION HANDED DOWN. ALL IT MEANS IS:

THAT YOU WILL OBEY THAT PART OF LAW IMPACTED BY THE DECISION, AND NOT ACT CONTRARY TO LEGAL PRECEDENT SET FORTH IN THE VERDICT, REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION(S)  

In no way are you restricted from Criticising, Disagreeing With, or Pointing out the Flaws in the Trial Process that may have led to the Judgement, (IN YOUR OPINION), being UNJUST, AND NOT A TRUE FINDER OF FACT.

In our system, you owe the JUDGE AND JURY NOTHING, AND HAVE NO MORAL OR LEGAL OBLIGATION TO ONLY PRAISE AND COMPLIMENT THEM. (ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY CLEARLY DO NOT DESERVE ANY POSITIVE FEEDBACK.)