If I were the defendant in this trial, I would appeal. The jury prayed over their decision.
Actually, this makes me wonder about a "jury of my peers". If I found that the jury prayed over whether to convict me or not, they are not my peers. If I were found guilty, I would certainly appeal on that ground.
The article quotes a juror:
Kissam [a juror] said there simply wasn't enough evidence to prove Cook [the defendant] behaved recklessly.
"Ninety-eight percent of the evidence pointed to (Cook) being correct," Kissam said. "He did all he could do."
Criminy, where to start? The juror based their decision on evidence, but still prayed? Why bother?
And why bother anyway? Prayer doesn't work. If they are willing to base their decision in a trial on evidence, why not look to the evidence that prayer doesn't work?