Too many of the potential jurors said that even if the defendant, Elisa Meadows, was guilty, they were unwilling to issue the $500 fine a city attorney was seeking, said Ren Rideauxx, Meadows’ attorney.

  • stoly
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    LOL amazingly a jury can decide how they want and that’s the end of it. the fact that someone may not like it is immaterial.

    • frezik
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago
      edit-2
      9 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Uhh, no. That’s not how it works.:

      According to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sparf v. U.S., written by Justice Harlan, juries have no right to ignore the law when rendering the jury’s verdict. However, nullification still occurs in some instances because of the secrecy of jury deliberations. It is difficult to determine if a jury negates the law, especially in close cases.

      If it was up to judges, it would never be allowed, and cases would go to appeal or retrial if it happens. It only continues because jury deliberations are private. If judges found out, they would toss it.

      • stoly
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        You’ve just proven that the SCOTUS decision is fully unenforceable, which means that jury nullification is the de facto law of the land.

        • frezik
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          It’s not. People blab about it a lot. Often right during jury selection, which makes it easy.

          • Zink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            9 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            That makes it easy to prevent, I think, but not necessarily enforce/punish

          • stoly
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            9 months ago
            edit-2
            9 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            That’s the one time they will get you. The other is like in the Darryl Brooks trial where he tried to bring it up repeatedly and was shut down instantly by the judge.

            • frezik
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              People blab all the time when they think they’re on to something smart. It’s surprisingly reliable.

          • afraid_of_zombies
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            9 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            Very well. Please show the part of the federal criminal code that allows a juror to be prosecuted for thought crime. I will wait.

      • Maggoty
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        Yeah, is this the same SCOTUS that says women have to die if their pregnancy fucks up?

        We should probably stop letting judges make laws. They don’t run this place, we do.

        • frezik
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          It’s been precedent for a long time. Also, if you want to confront the legitimately of the court system altogether, then jury nullification is meaningless.

          • Maggoty
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            9 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            It’s been a dead letter just as long.