you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 59 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Continuing the great American tradition of jury nullification

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] 33 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    This wasn't nullification. The sandwich throw clearly isn't assault. No crime was committed here.

    Clearly the other two were crimes. I'm skeptical they have the right guy for either, but I haven't seen the evidence and the jury will.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    My education is in the works. Is this actually an example of jury nullification? Like, what he did was actually illegal, but the jury presumably, thought the law was unjust? Or is throwing a sandwich at ICE just not illegal?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It is, by the letter of the law, assault (and battery, if that's a separate thing there). But the jury is not bound in any way as to whether they find a defendant guilty or not guilty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    There was a pretty locally big felony murder case. Some Norteños jumped some Sureños. The Norteños had bats. One of the Sureños had a gun. One of the Norteños died.

    Now, under stone principle I don't understand and can't remember what it's called, when you start committing a crime, any crimes that occur as a direct consequence are attributable to the party that began the illegal actions. So the Norteños went on trial for felony murder for shooting their own fellow gang member (since the Sureños could reasonably argue self defense and the DA wanted to do something about gang violence, they prosecuted the Norteños) even though a Sureño pulled the trigger.

    I learned it's difficult to get a conviction from a fair jury for felony murder when you "started it". They were acquitted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I can really see going after the ones who started it in the case you mentioned, even though their guy died. That feels like a tough row to hoe for the persecution, though.

    I wonder o of the jury would have more likely to convict if it was a bystander who died.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Not a lawyer but my reading of it is that, in other context, this fact pattern could theoretically lead to a conviction. It is hard to imagine a sandwich causing actual harm, though, so it is probably unethical to have even brought charges knowing it is such bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It’s actually pretty insane that this has happened, what, twice now in only a few weeks, both cases related to the fed occupations. I can’t even remember the last time an acquittal like this happened before that, though I don’t follow this stuff closely. I think OJ is the last one I’m aware of but that’s obviously a totally different situation. I was definitely expecting s different outcome, but good for him. I remember in the video they called him “Superman”, lol. I guess so!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    They didn't even say if the sandwich had ketchup or mustard in it. The combination can make a big difference in how the crime should be treated. What if it had Mayo! Has anyone stopped to think about that?

  • source
  • parent