I am no legal expert but I watched a lot of coverage on the case form multiple different networks and from my point of view the prosecution did very little to bring forward any type of actual facts or evidence. It seemed even their own witness' helped the defense more than the prosecution. So my opinion may not make any sense to anyone who is a lawyer or works in that area but as a regular person I would think that the jury was saying the same thing. Is it not the prosecution's job to prove what happened vice the defense to prove it didn't?

I guess that makes me a racist since after listening to the coverage I felt the prosecution failed to prove it's case.