|
Dapper_Swindler posted:So what's the chance of the bundys themselves getting convicted? At this point less than the odds of the feds just dropping the charges , or having the entire clan killed in an unfortunate prison riot.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's not clear that there was anything more that the prosecution could have done at jury selection. There are already mechanisms of enforcement on attorneys pulling this, and it was really obvious in this case. I disagree. Picking a jury is how you win cases like these, and it should be fairly easy to select a jury that won't nullify in this many cases. It is really easy to blame the defense here, but AUSAs have apparently gotten soft. Too many plea deals. I'm not saying you win every one of these, but I suspect a baby DA from a reasonable county would have a much better win rate here because they actually go to trial on the regular often on lovely he said/she said DVs. I'm not one to regularly defend DA's trial skills as a group, but here, you'd see better results. Federal cases almost never go to trial unless they are completely in the bag and the AUSA can't force them to plea with high man mins. That keeps you out of court, which is the only place you learn to do trials. I've been out of trial work for 2 years and probably would suck rear end despite having done dozens before that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Aggressive punishment of attorneys who go for it. The judge probably should've declared a mistrial and gone for punitive measures the instant it was clear the defense attorneys were shooting for this. This time around they were practically taking a sovcit stance. you're never going to prevent a jury from saying "gently caress that jackass judge and prosecutor - let's spite 'em by going not guilty" which appears to have happened here. hobbesmaster has issued a correction as of 19:42 on Aug 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:you're never going to prevent a jury from saying "gently caress that jackass judge and prosecutor - let's spite 'me by going not guilty" which appears to have happened here. Exactly. You can prohibit a defense attorney from saying "come on, nullify" but unless you're going to prevent the defense from putting on evidence that makes the defendant look in any way like good people, anything else isn't going to happen. Also, jury nullification tends to help out people who aren't racist rednecks, it just doesn't get in the papers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
I think these trials need to not be multi-week affairs, especially when it comes to defendants like Parker et al. It's really not a complicated case, and dragging it out over weeks just makes it seem more complicated than it is, creating room for doubt, and bores and irritates jurors. There is probably a point of diminishing returns on the evidence. Perhaps that is different when it comes to the actual leaders, as those cases have more moving parts and they did more than get their guns and sit on a bridge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
white people!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
nm posted:I disagree. Picking a jury is how you win cases like these, and it should be fairly easy to select a jury that won't nullify in this many cases. The thing is, though, that the prosecutor and judge did do quite a bit of pruning on what appeared to be an incredibly lovely jury pool. JJ Macnab talked about a number of "red flags" that came up with various jurors during jury selection... https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/896092406273028097 https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/896093078162857984 https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/896093874535276544 https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/896095796109557760 https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/896108361560670208
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The thing is, though, that the prosecutor and judge did do quite a bit of pruning on what appeared to be an incredibly lovely jury pool. JJ Macnab talked about a number of "red flags" that came up with various jurors during jury selection... Either they need to move the trial to another state or just save us some time and drop all the remaining charges because jesus loving christ.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Good job beating the insane and evil judical system various militia people! Feds can go to hell
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Never thought I'd say this but it's time to bring back aboveground nuclear testing in Nevada.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
This may be thread-adjacent but I heard that JJ MacNab is being harassed by leftists on twitter because she also does work investigating leftist extremist groups. https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/900381228083200001 etc. 
WrenP-Complete has issued a correction as of 23:14 on Aug 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:This may be thread-adjacent but I heard that JJ MacNab is being harassed by leftists on twitter because she also does work investigating leftist extremist groups. I can't imagine how our country was retarded enough to elect Donald Trump. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
JJ MacNab is an American hero.  quote:J MacNab is one of the nation’s leading experts on Sovereign Citizens, Tax Protesters, U.S. paramilitary “militia” groups, and related anti-government extremist organizations. She is a Fellow at the George Washington University Center for Cyber & Homeland Security, Program on Extremism. MacNab has testified as an expert before various legislative bodies and governmental agencies on subjects ranging from the growth of extremists groups to the financial scams used to recruit new members to these groups. 2001: U.S. Senate Committee on Finance 2002: The North America Securities Administrators Association 2003: California Senate 2004: U.S. Senate Committee on Finance 2006: U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, written report MacNab writes a regular column on the subject of anti-government extremism at Forbes.com, and has written articles for numerous other publications over the last fifteen years. She has appeared as an expert on CBS 60 Minutes, CNN, NBC Nightly News, ABC World News, C-Span, NPR, the Canadian Broadcast Company, and on dozens of other television news and radio shows. She has also been quoted in more than 300 newspapers and magazines and in 2005, the Wall Street Journal published a front page profile on her tax protest movement research. She has been featured in three documentaries on the subject of domestic terrorism in the United States and Canada. MacNab is the author of an upcoming book, “The Seditionists: Inside the Explosive World of Anti-Government Extremism in America,” scheduled to be published in 2016 by St. Martin's Press. The book takes readers deep into the movement, their recent growth, their racist history, and the many factors that drive them towards violence today. In addition to her research and writing, MacNab works as a consultant for various federal, state, and local regulatory and law enforcement agencies. She travels around the United States and Canada, teaching at law enforcement, judicial, and legal conferences. MacNab received her Bachelors in International Relations with an emphasis on weapons policy from the University of California at Berkeley and lives in the Washington, DC metropolitan area.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:This may be thread-adjacent but I heard that JJ MacNab is being harassed by leftists on twitter because she also does work investigating leftist extremist groups. haha. the guy she retweeted (who deleted the original tweet i guess) is apparently a crossover 4chan anonymous member and antifa member. that cool
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Venuz Patrol posted:haha. the guy she retweeted (who deleted the original tweet i guess) is apparently a crossover 4chan anonymous member and antifa member. that cool aka "i'm here for the violence"
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
What a sticky position for the AUSA to be in. By dropping the charges, you basically guarantee a base level of legally acceptable armed insurrection against a government agency. By pursuing further, you decrease your chances of getting the verdict you need and waste a shitload of your resources, but they kind of have to, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Jury nullification is poo poo. It's not an intended part of jury trials, it's expressly illegal. The defense isn't allowed to inform a jury about their right to jury nullification, but the practice itself is not illegal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
It is definitely illegal. Its just illegal in the way lots of stuff is illegal in regards to failing to uphold the law in that it also cant be legally enforced and theres no punishment
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Saying that jury nullification isn’t illegal is a bit like saying that destruction of evidence isn’t illegal as long as you’re thorough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
nm posted:Exactly. You can prohibit a defense attorney from saying "come on, nullify" but unless you're going to prevent the defense from putting on evidence that makes the defendant look in any way like good people, anything else isn't going to happen. I'd like you to reread this post of yours. Do you understand that there are degrees between the two phenomena described in the first paragraph, and where the behaviors under discussion fall along that spectrum? Do you understand that we've been following these trials, too? The constant violations, the openly expressed conspiracy theories? More seriously, do you understand how the second paragraph effects the interpretation of your other statements on the subject? Do you get what you're doing to your credibility here? "You can ban rocket launchers, but unless you ban all firearms, making concealed carry of fully automatic weapons illegal is a useless effort. Also, what about all the crime prevented by civilians with hidden submachine guns?" Discendo Vox has issued a correction as of 07:05 on Aug 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
Jury nullification is a feature, not a bug. If you don't like it, and want a system were legal professionals decide, then what you want is for a judge or panel of judges to come to a verdict. Our legal system is a mess of bullshit going back to at least the Norman conquest of England. We get the idea of a jury made up of 12 free men from the Vikings. It would be nice if a Napoleon came along and made us clean up our legal system. But until then, we get to live with hicks waging war on federal law enforcement, while local cops can shoot minorities with impunity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'd like you to reread this post of yours. Do you understand that there are degrees between the two phenomena described in the first paragraph, and where the behaviors under discussion fall along that spectrum? Please tell me, in all your jury trial experience how you'd achieve "Aggressive punishment of attorneys who go for it. The judge probably should've declared a mistrial and gone for punitive measures the instant it was clear the defense attorneys were shooting for this. This time around they were practically taking a sovcit stance." without actively hindering the ability to put on a defense. Appealing to sympathies is pretty important to defending someone accused of committing a crime. The overwhelming bias of jurors against the average defendant just because his is sitting at that defense table is powerful, particularly if he is a minority. If you open the door to allowing the judge, who quite frankly is 9/10 pro-prosecution, to shut all that down because you're seeming a little to nullifcationy, that's not going to mostly hurt a few rednecks with guns, but poor, black and Hispanic defendants who the middle class white people that serve on juries see no reason to give the benefit of the doubt to. I get it, you're pissed that a bunch of assholes got off, but unless you're willing to propose a system that will prevent this type of situation better than teaching prosecutors how to pick a loving jury (they tend to be really bad at it) without limiting the ability of a defense attorney to humanize his client, I'm all ears. Massive, sweeping changes to the criminal justice system because people are angry about some crime have worked so well in the past. See: Three strikes, California's Proposition 8 (truth in evidence), any law named after a dead person, sex registration, etc. edit: I see you made some edits, so lets just latch on to one Discendo Vox posted:The constant violations, the openly expressed conspiracy theories? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/us/baltimore-police-video-bodycam.html?mcubz=3 http://ktla.com/2017/08/18/mass-sho...ormant-scandal/ etc Now the above are cases where someone did the right thing before the case went to jury, but these types of cases go to jury trial as often as they get dismissed or otherwise dealt with properly. When it comes to police misconduct, it often is a conspiracy theory that sometimes turns out to be true. Where do you set the line where a defendant can bring that up? The fact is that you don't have much more than some circumstantial evidence to weave into an argument because your client is some meth head who got his head beat in, and you're against a well funded and trained organization that finally learned not to write incriminating poo poo down. So when is it a conspiracy theory and when is it a valid defense? And who gets to decide? The judge who was probably a prosecutor and also wants to go play golf? Oh and if you're going to argue an appeals court can fix it, let me introduce you to the term "harmless error" which excuses all but the most grave mistakes as long as it looks like the defendant did it. ---- Let me b clear that I'm not happy that these people are walking. However, I'm not willing to change the legal system in a way that makes convicting people easier. It is already generally way to easy to convict people. I would support the AUSAs getting some jury selection training -- you would be amazed what someone actually good at jury selection can do. There is a reason why defense attorneys focus on jury selection the most of all while for some reason prosecutors keep focusing on their closings. At that point, you've already won or lost. nm has issued a correction as of 07:29 on Aug 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
You've just restated, at greater length, the same self-serving prevarication of fact and argument from futility that you did the first time around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You've just restated, at greater length, the same self-serving prevarication of fact and argument from futility that you did the first time around. Pass the bar and come back and talk to me about jury trials. All you're doing is whining about jury nullification without proposing any concrete way of solving the problem. You think it is such a big huge loving problem, how would you fix it? And no, have the judge declare a mistrial and punish the defense attorneys is not an answer unless you tell us when that bar is passed. If you'd even conducted a jury trial, you'd know it isn't nearly this simple. The problem is this. When does a defense attorney cross the line from building up his client to nullifying? When does "he is such a nice young man, he never would have assaulted that old woman" turn into "he assaulted that woman but he is so nice we'll let him go?" Who gets to decide that line? Re: conspiracies. One of my last jury trials was weird. I thought my client was innocent and the cop was lying. The case came down to a swearing contest between the cop and an independent eyewitness. I layed the fucl into the cop, who while outwardly nice seeming, was sketchy as gently caress. It was so hard that the court kind of indicated I should back off, but I thought he was hiding some poo poo. Next say *poof* someone discovers and late turns over evidence showing the cop and his partner lied about my client. Now I will admit, I was verging into conspracy theory land, but based on a hunch based on a lovely police report that didn't make much sense. Should I have been stopped before the video was "found?" What if the video had never been found? I was not using the conspiracy theory to argue "look these cops are so dirty you should punish them by aquitting my guilty client" but "these cops are so dirty you should have a reasonable doubt about everything they say" though I can promise you that on the first day you'd have never convinced the court of that. The court just shouldn't have that much control over a defensive strategy, it makes an already hard job harder. I'm all ears as to how you plan to fix this system without hurting innocent people but so far, you've stuck to "nullification bad" without any actual substance. It makes it pretty hard to determine if your proposal will work when your proposal seems to simple be to make jury trials great again without telling anyone the nuts and bolts of how you'd do that. nm has issued a correction as of 08:12 on Aug 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
if the bundys were black they would be dead long ago
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Maybe they'll really push things next time so we can just kill them with drones. I'm not kidding.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Maybe they'll really push things next time so we can just kill them with drones. I'm not kidding.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
i can't wait for idiot hicks being gunned down
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
I'm very much not a lawyer, and I'm only 50% sure I understand the arguments above... but why do we have/need jury nullification to start with? Do other countries have problems with jury nullification? (apologies for anything not clear, I'm insomniposting)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I'm very much not a lawyer, and I'm only 50% sure I understand the arguments above... but why do we have/need jury nullification to start with? Do other countries have problems with jury nullification? Everything that goes on in the Jury room is secret, and they don't have to explain their decision. So there's nothing stopping it happening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 09:52
|
|
|
the american justice system being a complete shitshow isn't really a reason to do away with jury trials
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:Everything that goes on in the Jury room is secret, and they don't have to explain their decision. So there's nothing stopping it happening. Because to the outside observer it just looks like a not guilty decision? Thanks for explaining.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Because to the outside observer it just looks like a not guilty decision? Thanks for explaining. I'm not sure what you are asking to be honest. Someone said it's a feature not a bug until a white man shoots a car load of black kids and is acquitted Or oj if you want to flip the table
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 10:20
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:I'm not sure what you are asking to be honest. Someone said it's a feature not a bug until a white man shoots a car load of black kids and is acquitted I think I'm still confused about something basic. I understand that jury nullification is when the jury says the law is unjust so doesn't convict even though the evidence is there, right? So do we know it's jury nullification when a jury returns a not guilty verdict? Because they don't have to explain their decision, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 10:27
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I'm very much not a lawyer, and I'm only 50% sure I understand the arguments above... but why do we have/need jury nullification to start with? Do other countries have problems with jury nullification? nm could probably answer better, but the short of it is that America's legal system was designed to protect citizens to a greater degree than previous legal systems. This means that if the jury of your peers decided the law isn't a good one, they just refuse to judge your against it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 10:30
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I think I'm still confused about something basic. I understand that jury nullification is when the jury says the law is unjust so doesn't convict even though the evidence is there, right? So do we know it's jury nullification when a jury returns a not guilty verdict? Because they don't have to explain their decision, right? Right. I'm not sure if there's consequences if they do say they did so explicitly because of nullification but like any less than legal endeavor you keep your mouth shut and there's nothing they can do
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 10:31
|
|
|
glad that federal tyranny has been kept in check by The People
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 10:33
|
|
|
Your honor we the trenchcoat people do clear this man of charges he jacked it to pigeons in public
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
Jury nullification is an unintended consequence of a jury’s independence. Judges aren’t allowed to second-guess a jury and say “you sure about that ‘not guilty’ verdict?  ” and either reject the verdict or punish the jurors for their conduct.We could eliminate jury nullification, but not without stripling juries of powers they have held for centuries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 10:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I think I'm still confused about something basic. I understand that jury nullification is when the jury says the law is unjust so doesn't convict even though the evidence is there, right? So do we know it's jury nullification when a jury returns a not guilty verdict? Because they don't have to explain their decision, right? When it's obvious that the defendant is guilty but the jury still returns not guilty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 10:48
|
|