An analytical look at three conversation-starting developments for the Vikings this week ...
1)How exactly did cornerback Chris Cook walk away scot-free from his domestic assault trial?
Before we fast-forward too quickly and begin forecasting Cook's future with the Vikings – understand he'll be given every chance to start in 2012 – it's worth looking back at Cook's compelling trial, which ended Thursday afternoon with the 25-year-old defensive back acquitted on all charges.
So now Cook gets another chance to resume his NFL career.
Yet it's worth asking how, with all the testimony and evidence presented, 12 jurors could ultimately conclude Cook deserved to walk free without any punishment whatsoever. After all, Cook never denied the fact that an October fight with his then-girlfriend Chantel Baker turned startlingly violent. And at the end of the scrap, Baker was left with a perforated eardrum, a bruised face and a bloody nose. Several marks on Baker's neck also seemed to confirm the claims she made first to Eden Prairie police officers and later to detectives and doctors that Cook had tried to choke her. That's what led to the heaviest felony charge: domestic assault by strangulation.
Cook also faced a count of domestic assault in the third-degree. And on Wednesday afternoon, when the jurors were sent into deliberations, they were instructed to consider a pair of lesser charges as well: domestic assault with intent to cause fear and domestic assault with intent to inflict bodily harm.
In the end, the jury came back with the same verdict across the board: not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty.
In the end, Cook's attorneys had delivered a self-defense argument that provided the jury with plenty to think about. Baker's recantation of her previous statements to authorities and medical personnel was also a major element in the case and a major setback to the prosecution, whose case seemed straightforward and with few significant holes.
But those who have ever sat on a jury for a criminal trial – in 2010, I was a juror for a first-degree murder case – can appreciate the very detailed instructions that come with issuing a verdict. And in many cases, that old foundation phrase of the United States legal system, "beyond a reasonable doubt," can really complicate things for those evaluating testimony and evidence. Remember Cook began his trial on March 5 with a presumption of innocence and the burden of proof sitting on the state's shoulders. And in a trial like this one, the prosecution can present a case and a side of the story that's more believable than the defense's and it's still not enough. All it takes is for the jury to have that reasonable doubt to steer away from a guilty verdict. So where does each juror and the jury as a whole draw that reasonable doubt line.
As Nick Dykstra, a juror in the Cook trial, told the Star Tribune's Abby Simons on Thursday afternoon: "I thought there was an 80 percent chance that he was guilty, but that 20 percent reasonable doubt was just a couple percentage points enough to make me vote not guilty."