I used to being wrong. Jury came back saying she had to have known she hit someone and should have a) stopped to give aid, and B) reported the incident. They let her off on the reckless charge but convicted on the lesser careless charge. She's looking at 4 years, meaning she'll do about 3. It will be quite the culture shock, that's for sure.
I wasn't there but am still surprised at the verdict. I just didn't think there was a way the Jurors could say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she had to have known she hit someone. Now, I was on the foreman on a 3rd degree assault jury years ago, and I began the trail, as one should, with acquittal on mind. Based on the evidence I saw, I was still at acquittal, until the jury instructions from the Judge. At that point I had no choice but to vote guilty. There was only a couple that were unsure, but once we explained the judges instruction, they agreed we really didn't have a choice. We sent a question tot he court, for clarification, and went off too lunch. Upon return we entered the court room to have our questions read, and the judge's answer was we could only go by his original instructions. We returned within the hour with our guilty verdict.
The first hint at the the mindset of the jury concluded they believe 'that the damage to Senser's care made it clear something 'very serious happened'
Best coverage of the case, including this verdict synopsis, can be found at the Minnesota Criminal Defense Blog.