The article provides some key details you don't mention here: > It was a civil trial, so the standard was not “beyond a reasonable doubt”, just the “prepondera

The article provides some key details you don't mention here: > It was a civil trial, so the standard was not “beyond a reasonable doubt”, just the “preponderance of evidence”. No one was facing prison, but if the city and officers were found liable, there could be a large financial settlement and it could affect the careers of the policemen. The trial was covered by several local media outlets. On Thursday 10 March, after an afternoon and morning of deliberations, the eight jurors – five white, one Asian woman and two Asian men – unanimously ruled in favour of the police on all counts. Namely: - It was a civil trial, - preponderance of evidence was required, - the penalty would come back to hurt the tax-base, - the jurors were insulated from the racial component.