Tosses verdict

That's crazy how a judge can overturn a jury's verdict. In the Case of Alphonzo Williams, Judge Ralph Erickson had presided over the juries reasonable verdict. Williams was arrested in March of 2009 in Fargo during an undercover sting and accused of taking part in a drug-dealing conspiracy. The trial took place in November in federal court. The jurors found Williams guilty on three of four drug-related counts. In January Erickson took the extraordinary step of throwing out the jurors' verdicts on the charges of Williams. It was the first time Erickson has ever thrown out a jurors' verdict in his 16 years of being a judge. Erickson said there wasn't enough evidence to prove that Williams was part of a drug conspiracy. They say it was a little bias because there were 12 white jurors and Williams is a black man with a known drug trafficker. I believe there was no bias for the man. The appeals court could affirm Erickson's ruling, it can call for a new trial, or it can decide Erickson is wrong and order him to sentence Williams. I argue with the ability that the judge can overturn a jurors' decision but with the courts acceptance. Some people are saying that they rather see ten guilty men go free than one innocent man gets convicted. When they arrested Williams and Booker, Booker had cocaine and heroin on him and Williams had just a half-gram of crack, that's known as "personal use" amount in his pocket. The police officer never talked to Williams and made a deal to sell or do anything with crack. Williams was not charged with possessing drugs but rather conspiring to distribute drugs. With the jury hearing William's prior convictions of possession with intent to distribute crack were unable to ignore the evidence that should have never been brought up. That is unfair for Williams that the jury heard that evidence. With knowing that evidence the jury already had in their minds that Williams is a drug dealer. To get convicted of crimes by a jury there needs to be so much evidence that it basically proves that person getting accused is guilty. If there is a doubt that the person is innocent than there must be more evidenc to prove if they are guilty. From the evidence shown I think Williams is innocent. What do you think? It would be nice to see what the courts do to the judge's decision, if they keep it, give him a new trail, or sentence Williams. I think the courts will argue with the judge's decision.