The second episode of Life and Death Row follows the trial of Guy Heinze Jr accused of beating to death eight members of his family in his trailer home in 2009. He was 22 years old at the time.
This film saw footage of the trial, followed his brother and grandmother during the trial who give their opinion of the proceedings. Remarkably the programme talks to some members of the jury who were involved in the verdict.
In a sense this trial reminded me somewhat of the OJ Simpson case. The police were certain they had a cast iron case against the accused. The forensic experts engaged by the defence dismantled the prosecution's evidence rather comprehensively leading even the jurors to question how effective the police investigation really was.
There were manoeuvrings regarding the jury deliberations. One juror was adamant that Heinze was not guilty and would not change their mind. Eventually the defence agreed to remove that person and a substitute juror was installed. The jury reached a verdict of guilty. Some of the jurors gave reasons as to why they came to this verdict such as Heinze trying to hide a gun or why no one saw him at the field he was supposed to be high on crack cocaine or his demeanour when he rang the emergency services.
Heinze was sentenced to life in prison. Part of the deal for removing the obstinate juror was that the prosecution would remove the call for the death penalty.
I found the defence team's forensic experts convincing, yet balancing that with the accused behaviour and actions when he supposedly found their bodies I can understand why some of the jury was confused unable to decide properly whether he was really guilty or innocent.
I am not convinced that the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.