Even knowing what I know now, I would have chosen not guilty - the government simply didn't meet the burden of proof, and our civil liberties are important
I admire the principled stance, genuinely, but I’m curious if your stance would be the same if someone was on trial for murdering a child, or something else horrific, and probably has a high likelihood of being a repeat offender. Would you still vote not guilty to protect their civil liberties, if you had information not shared with the jury that removed your reasonable doubt?
FWIW, I’m genuinely not sure what I’d do in that situation…