You must log in or # to comment.
Guys, if they ask if you’re sympathetic, you say NO. Feed them some shit about believing in the rule of law. Sympathize in silence. Then nullify.
“A jury of your peers”. No not like that!
I am sincerely hoping jury nullification will strike terror into the Oligarchs
Honestly I wish we had jury nullification in Europe. It seems like a really useful check that forces common law systems to touch grass.
deleted by creator
Most continental European countries have law systems that are based on or are at least heavily influenced by the Napoleonic code. And the Napoleonic code has trial by jury for serious crimes (like murder).
deleted by creator
I doubt that he would be prosecuted for terrorism in any other western democracies, it seems to be part of the USA prosecution habit of stacking up as many charges as possible, combined with the very broad anti terrorism laws after 2001.
If prosecuted as a murder, a jury trial would happen in a bunch of countries: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/do-countries-the-jury-trial-system.html Imo you assume wrong in this case.
I didn’t know this
Every country evolved differently. And even from the law systems that evolved directly from the code Napoleon, there are some (I know of 1 atleast) without any lay jury system: The Netherlands scrapped the lay jury in 1813 already, basically right after Napoleon was kicked out.
They’re only going to find jurors that are pro clubbing seals and hating puppies.
Edit: Thanks, everyone. I know how jury selection works. I was being facetious.
It’s remarkably hard to do in a well diversified like NYC.
There is a set group of randomly chosen individuals for jury duty. From that group some will be dismissed for issues unrelated to the case, at the judge’s discretion. From the thinned group we get voir dire where each side will ask questions to determine any sort of biases they want or don’t want. Each side has a limited number of dismissals. At the end we get 12 people (plus some backups). And those 12 individuals must come to a unanimous decision, if not then we get a mistrial and the Prosecution has to decide whether to spend the time and public funds to try it again, from the top with a new jury. Who again go through the same process. There are seemingly slam dunk cases that get dropped simply because of multiple juries not coming to an agreement.
With highly politicized topics, finding 12 random individuals from the jury pool that can come to a unanimous agreement is a tall order, and that doesn’t even get into jury nullification where they decide that it happened but they don’t care, or think it was justified.
And when your jury pool is going to be filled with individuals that the victim was directly responsible for causing pain and suffering… Well it might not BE possible.
The Prosecution has to decide whether to spend the time and public funds to try it again, from the top with a new jury.
And they will. Considering they’re trying to throw every possible charge at him out of desperation and to make him into an example, there isn’t a chance in hell they would let him walk.
Finding one set of possible jurors is hard enough, if they don’t get it the first time, the chances get even smaller each additional time. Especially since those potential jurors will have had a chance to see the evidence that already resulted in one failed prosecution.
BOTH sides select the jury.
Technically true, but factually complicated. “Pick” really means “neither side has a valid objection, and the judge decides what’s valid or not.” Unfortunately, “has too much sympathy” will almost certainly always be held as a valid objection, but “doesn’t have enough sympathy” will almost certainly never be held as a valid objection.
And that’s even before you consider the judge’s conflicts of interest.
So it might be a tough time for prosecutors, but it’s still going to be a much tougher time for the defense.
Good
Golly gee I wonder why. /s
Skill issue
