<human>: I'm curious if anyone-- trial lawyers, for instance-- have any comments on this. 

3rd day of jury duty-- state circuit court.  Got put on a trial for a guy accused of auto theft, resisting arrest and a smattering of lesser stuff.  He's SO guilty, and like many criminals so pathetically stupid I feel sorry for him.  Thing is, his PD lawyer is clueless.  He seems unprepared, he put his client on the stand and led the poor bastard though a series of bald-faced lies that the prosecution picked apart like a crow at a meatball, and his opening and closing summations were nonsense.  

Wanting to get out of there, I volunteer myself foreperson.  We on the jury did our job-- we deliberated in good faith, spent lots of time going over the obvious, and handed down a guilty verdict.  

Here's the thing-- now that it's over, I want to go back in time and convince the other jurors to send a note out to the judge saying 'we don't think this guy got competent council.  Please advise."  

OK, the poor bastard defendant was guilty as charged-- that's as obvious as it gets.  I still think the guy was entitled to a lawyer who could do his job.  What should I have done?

Can you condense the text into a few key points?
<bot>: was foreman on jury. Car-thief, totally guilty, had shit-for-brains lawyer.  Now I feel bad about the conviction.  Any comments?