How do you know which verdict is wrong or right in order to say that though? You can say that slow motion makes people convict more, or convict less, or whatever, but unless you have an oracle to tell you which was the correct verdict in each case, and we don't, this data tells us nothing.
Maybe people are systematically underestimating violence when they don't get to see it in slow motion, and the acquittals when they don't have slow motion are the wrong conclusion.
Or maybe people are systematically overestimating violence when they do have the slow motion and the convictions are the wrong conclusion.
Who knows? But it doesn't really give us anything to go on does it?
How do you know which verdict is wrong or right in order
to say that though?
After it's been pointed out, the point of the article is entirely obvious: if we see someone take a minute before committing murder, then we will think them of having had sufficient time to think. If it takes 5 seconds, he obviously didn't have time to consider. So if we stretch 5 seconds into a minute, a jury will conclude there was rational deliberation where there was only instinctive response.
What is entirely non-obvious is supposing that brain of the average juror could 'just' compensate for his impressions based on the knowledge that it was shown in slow motion. We know they aren't capable of that with many, many other cognitive weaknesses. Sources: Influence, Thinking Fast and Slow, Predictably Irrational, ...
But in sports, slow motion is often enlightening. After a tackle, we see a soccer player collapse to the ground, writhing in agony, clutching their shin. But then slow mo shows that the other player never even made contact with them, its a classic "dive". In that case, there's no doubt that the slow mo version is more informative.
The whole point of the article is that it helps them come to the wrong conclusion in a number of cases and your argument is that they must be wrong, because they came to the 'correct', in your opinion, solution in this specific case. That kind of reasoning is awful and immoral.