Exactly my thoughts as well. Every piece of evidence law enforcement has was basically intentionally provided by him. If he just stuffed his trash in one of his 7 pockets, or wore a pair of sunglasses, or didn't actually stare straight at the camera in the taxi like he was getting his school picture taken? I mean pretty much the only thing he failed to do was leave his business card at the crime scene.
It's sometimes asked about whether you'd follow the evidence - people aren't excluded (at least by the judge) for just knowing what the concept is.
As for "lying" here, it's an interesting metaphysical question. Because you're not lying (or telling the truth) about some observable event, it's simply your own state of mind. If somebody asks "Why did you vote not guilty", you simply say "I didn't believe the evidence was convincing". There is literally no way for anyone else to say otherwise.
> If somebody asks "Why did you vote not guilty", you simply say "I didn't believe the evidence was convincing". There is literally no way for anyone else to say otherwise
Nullification needs to be unanimous. You'd get in trouble when pitching nullification to your fellow jurors. (Or at the very least, have a mistrial declared.)
> people aren't excluded (at least by the judge) for just knowing what the concept is
If you want a surefire way to get off a jury, mention nullification in voir dire. (Hell, just ask innocently about it.)
Nullification absolutely does not need to be unanimous, and it rarely is. All it takes is one juror force a mistrial (and another if it is retried, etc.) Sure, the prosecutor would likely retry, but again, it just takes one juror out of twelve to cause a mistrial, and the vast majority of prosecutors don't prosecute indefinitely.
> If you want a surefire way to get off a jury, mention nullification in voir dire.
of course the case would be retried, but if after the first mistrial there is a widespread partying in the streets, and then the second mistrial the same, and then the third trial starts there is rioting, the way the system currently works they might decide not to try a fourth trial. Of course I don't know if the U.S is there yet.
I do. The educated, well-to-do, urban bubble has convinced itself—again—that this guy is universally adored. Because we’re mistaking—again—the difference between a symbol and the object, a mistake amplified by those who get their world view primarily from Twitter, Reddit, et cetera.
In the one case I sat on the jury for the judge told us that we had to follow their directions exactly as to how to interpret the law when making a sentence. We were informed we not allowed to choose a lighter charge (options were misdemeanor assault, assault and aggravated assault).
Jury nullification wouldn't have mattered and it was settled in an hour, but it was interesting. But I had been warned by multiple lawyer friends this might happen.
Even more wasteful as this was the 3rd strike so the difference between assault and aggravated was 25 or 26 years, aka no difference. And the defendant had pleaded down already. Finally it was obvious it wasn't aggravated for several reasons and the prosecution was just fishing for convictions. Basically took 2 extra days of everyone's time fishing for sentence elevations.
The jury ended up giving them assault, not aggrivated. Aggrivated required pre-mediatation. But the guy was drunk and did something dumb and quick. It wasn't pre-meditated. The judge was essentially telling us it had to be aggrivated, but also quoted the law. The jury voted for non-aggrivated. But it was 3 strikes so he got the same sentence (the full boat) no matter if he was aggrivated or non-aggrivated.
how do I know this? the defense attorney and the prosecutor both went to bars in my neighborhood. I got both of them drinks and asked them for the back story on the case.
> Most people don't even know what jury nullification is, and even fewer realize it is in fact legal. I'd be surprised if he was banking on that.
Also, IIRC, the court system is pretty against it. The judge won't instruct the jury on it and I very much doubt he'd let the defense attorney bring it up to the jury either.
Courts can be against it all they want, it is still legal and well within a juror's rights. I'd never expect a judge or attorney to raise it as an option, but at the end of the day it is.
Jury selection throws a wrench in the system, lawyers have a chance to ask questions under oath and get rid of jurors for most any reason. As i understand it, its pretty common for them to try to ferret out anyone that may go the nullification route.
I don't unfortunately, that would be buried somewhere in federal codes.
Orders and instructions are different though. An official order by a judge may fall under contempt of court if you don't comply. Instructions are more procedural and about a judge running the process of the trial. For deliberation, that also generally means instructions that really just help guide a jury of people who may not have done it before and aren't sure of the process or general expectations.
A juror can't be punished for their decision, ever. It doesn't matter whether a juror keeps their reasoning a secret or not.
Its interesting you meant that rhetorically, your premise is wrong in my opinion. If you want to distinguish between an instruction and an order I'd think it has to be based on how it can be enforced. An instruction can't be enforced by a judge, for example they can instruct you to only consider what was presented but they can't punish you if you disobey that.
Perhaps the jurisdiction where you practice is different than the ones I do? In federal court, and the states I'm familiar with, the judge certainly can punish you for disobeying instructions. You take an oath, and the judge orders you, to follow the instructions.
In the situation of jury nullification, though, the judge would have to be punishing a juror for the verdict they supported. That isn't legal at least in the US, a juror can't be instructed to give a certain verdict or punished based on their decision.
Judges will be careful not to directly give instructions against nullification for precisely that reason. They may very well imply that you shouldn't go off the rails of evidence provided or laws and precedent as described, but that's as far as a judge can go with instructions against nullification.
The judge, prosecution and defense get to vet each juror by asking them about their beliefs and biases. They can reject jurors if they believe the juror is unable to hear a case without being impartial. Jurors (often) won't be told the details of the case they'll be hearing while they're being vetted, only the basic details (e.g. defendant is a white male accused of murdering another white male).
In extremely high profile cases like the ones featuring Donald Trump, courts focus on selecting jurors who can remain fair and impartial despite their knowledge of the case or their own personal opinions. They'll go through extensive vetting which can include written questionnaires, interviews, oral questioning about their media consumption, their political beliefs and potential biases, and so on.
Judges generally hate it but there's also nothing they can do about it if it happens.
That said its a very far leap to assume (either as the suspect or as a third party) that because this suspect has a lot of online sympathy that that will translate to a jury both willing and knowledgeable enough to nullify. Certainly wouldn't bet my life or freedom on that myself.
Personally I lean toward doubting that getting caught was part of some master plan. People have this binary view of things where he's either got to be a criminal mastermind who thought of everything or a complete fool, and the reality is probably that he's a better than average premeditated murderer (given all of what is stacked against him) who still got caught due to a combination of bad luck and being a little bit careless. Considering how extensive the current surveillance state is he got closer to getting away with it than the vast majority of people would have, but also combined that with some stupid but perfectly naturally human oversights.
Or maybe he’s just not that smart… it’s pretty much expected some number will lose their marbles and become semi-deranged or fully deranged every year.
I’d guess at least 1 in ten thousand per annum. Which would equate to hundreds of newly deranged developers per year in the US.
Version 2.0 of this crime will feature the shooter having the forethought to have put a bitcoin wallet address on the front of his mask as he traipsed around in front of the cameras.
In the movie "Wag the Dog", Dustin Hoffman plays a Hollywood producer who is hired by the President to create a fake war to take attention away from another scandal. Spoiler alert Near the end, Hoffman's character is upset that the President's re-election is credited to something else instead of his handiwork. Even when told he's risking his life if he says anything, he yells "I want the credit!". I think a similar psychology may be at work in this and other crimes that become (in)famous.
I _think_ what you're getting at is saying the suspect wants the credit, in response to the parent saying the next one will be better at evasion by learning from his mistakes, right? And implying the next one might not want to evade either? I have no speculation here just looking for clarification on the movie reference.
Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. Obviously anybody who goes to the trouble of penning a manifesto is a hero/protagonist in their own narrative. When they see that their acts have captured the attention or even admiration of a significant portion of the public, the urge to stand up and say "I'm the one who did this great deed, and here's why" will often overpower the instinct for self preservation.
