|
Conversely, some people believe that O.J Simpson's 33 year sentence for Armed Robbery was because he got away with murder.
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 10:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
It absolutely was, that robbery is not a 33 year crime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
Prokhor Zakharov posted:if the bundys were black they would be dead long ago
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
I hope when trump gets arrested all the walmart militias turn out and get hellfires shoved up their asses by drones i lust for hick death
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
nm posted: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. Dv is a failed lawyer sont bother arguing with him
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:Conversely, some people believe that O.J Simpson's 33 year sentence for Armed Robbery was because he got away with murder. That is definitely why he ate that sentence tho
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:I hope when trump gets arrested all the walmart militias turn out and get hellfires shoved up their asses by drones You're hosed in the head
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
nm posted: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. Your detailed explanations are appreciated. However jury selection seems to be a bit of a black art and saying the AUSAs should have just voir dired + jedi mind tricked harder isn't very satisfying for non-lawyers trying to understand this verdict. To turn the question around, in the event of a mistrial how can we know that the prosecutors didn't follow all the best jury selection practices? How do we know when they did a reasonable job and it just turns out the jury pool is very biased against conviction on this issue? Also geez, everything I read about jury selection makes it seem like pools are overwhelmingly dominated by people who don't want to be on the jury, should not be the jury, or are trying their best to hide that they desperately want to be on the jury so they can convict/nullify. I don't envy trial attorneys having to sift through all that to find the mythical unbiased non-news reader who also doesn't mind having their life+job disrupted to sit on a jury.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
Lol if you think there will be even a quantum of consequence for Klavern Bundy in this amazing new tiny train world we live in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
coathat posted:You're hosed in the head Hick death is cool and good
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
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? You've been answered, but for other countries: Yes we do, even the ones that don't in essence have juries. I mean, my country still does, but it's being replaced by a smaller panel of lay judges. One of the reasonings behind this choice is the problem of they jury (or as we call them "lagrette") doesn't give a reason for its decisions. There are a couple of problems with this. One huge one is that there's no way to examine in retrospect whether or not that decision was flawed or based on flawed assumptions, understanding or just stupidity or maliciousness. It's impossible to vet after the fact, which is something we need to have for all types of trials (in essence) due to actual codified human rights (ECHR as an example). It's also a problem in and of itself that a jury verdict gives no reasons - being given a reason for a verdict is a right just by itself. An important example of the importance of this comes up actually somewhat frequently in the lower courts, where court is set with a judge (an actual jurist) and two lay judges. The lay judges aquit, but are compelled to state their reasoning in doing so, and oh boy - from a couple of rape cases: "Dude was a christian, must have been a swell guy" "she looked at them flirtingly (gang rape)" "they didn't understand that she was in no condition to consent, even though she was obviously unconcious". At that point, you're not looking a any kind if jurisprudential guarantee but rather a jurisprudential liability. The actual judge in those case obviously wrote a scathing dissention, but he is and can be overruled by the lay judges. It's effectively the same as jury nullification as I understand it. We do also have a rule of jury nullification nullification, where if the jury is stupid enough the judge can go "gently caress you guys, you are morons, and here's why - I'll loving prove it mathematically" but this alone is almost perfect grounds for appeal so it's almost never done, and also limited to specific cases. There's no good or easy answer. We have one of the best legal systems in the world by objective metrics, but in my own experience working for the prosecutor's office and as a defence attourney, judges are - as previously mention itt - often heavily biased in favour of the prosecution. This is true, and I've seen it from both sides. So you need a way to counteract that, because a lot of criminal law especially is a lot of tough calls about lying and the facts and missteps are very very costly. It's not a perfect system, in fact it's deeply flawed, but that's also due to never having the perfect facts in any given case. We have to do our best, and juries and lay judges are probably going to be our best way of doing that for a while still. Jury selection is some bullshit though, that's all on you americans. We don't do that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:You've been answered, but for other countries: Yes we do, even the ones that don't in essence have juries. I mean, my country still does, but it's being replaced by a smaller panel of lay judges. One of the reasonings behind this choice is the problem of they jury (or as we call them "lagrette") doesn't give a reason for its decisions. Thank you! This is exactly the kind of thing I was wondering about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
nm posted:I would not be shocked if the end result is that the feds don't focus so much one a peaceful resolution next time. Actually Trump will just give them the land
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Actually Trump's New Secretary of the Interior, Klavern Bundy, will just give them the land Fixed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Your detailed explanations are appreciated. However jury selection seems to be a bit of a black art and saying the AUSAs should have just voir dired + jedi mind tricked harder isn't very satisfying for non-lawyers trying to understand this verdict. To turn the question around, in the event of a mistrial how can we know that the prosecutors didn't follow all the best jury selection practices? How do we know when they did a reasonable job and it just turns out the jury pool is very biased against conviction on this issue? It is kind of black magic, but a big part of it is showmanship. The real art of jury selection is being able to preview your case to the jury (witgin fairly restrictive confines) and see who reacts positively to it. It is the type of thing that comes with experence, not cooercing people to plea to drug charges because they'll get 2000 years if they go to trial and lose. And to be fair, sometimes the jury pool just sucks, but this seems to be happening enough that I'd lean more toward problems in selecting juries, particularly in selecting juries in cases involving people with problems with the federal government. The jury the prosecution wants for this type of case is almost a 180 from the type they want on say a drug charge. To change the jury pool, you need to make being on a jury easier. The whole $7 a day thing is bullshit. Jurors should get paid what they make on a daily basis otherwise. Services like childcare and the like should be accounted for and maybe also provided. Notices should go out much sooner, it would be much easier to know 6 months to a year in advance to block out a week or two. The exchange should be much, much harder hardship kicks. Also, while judges always threaten that people with a hardship kick may be called again in the same year, we should make sure that actually happens. I will be the first to admit that jurors who don't want to be there kind of suck, but they're still better than jaded, often elected, judges. The jury system kind of sucks, but it seems better than all the other systems that have been tried. corn in the bible posted:Actually Trump will just give them the land Also, these losers don't actually want the land. If they did they'd have to pay taxes on it, maintain it, etc. They just want to use our land for free.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
coathat posted:You're hosed in the head 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
nm posted: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. It's often ambiguous, yes, but the way this trial went was remarkably clear-cut example. The defense didn't really attempt to argue that their client didn't commit the crime - they attempted to argue that if their client did commit the crime, they would have been justified in doing so. Something like that is pretty much irrelevant outside of nullification arguments, which is why the judge tried to prohibit the defense attorneys from making that argument. Unfortunately, the defense appears to have realized that the judge was trying to prevent nullification arguments, and purposely ran afoul of that to make it look like the government was being mean to them. That just shows the difficulty of policing human factors without any real checks or balances. 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? To put it very simply, the purpose of a trial is to determine whether a thing happened. The prosecution charges that the defendant did X or Y, the defense denies it, then both the prosecution and defense present evidence and stories and arguments supporting their side of the story. Then the jury acts as ultimate fact-finder, evaluating what they saw in the trial and deciding whether or not the defendant did the things they were charged with beyond any reasonable doubt, while the judge advises them as a theoretically unbiased legal expert. But what if the evidence is so blatant, so overwhelming, that no reasonable person would come to a "not guilty" verdict? For example, what if the FBI had been warned of the crime in advance by an informant, set up surveillance, and spent some time carefully documenting and monitoring the crime to gather evidence against the defendant before they moved in to make arrests? Or what if the entire crime was committed in front of a surveillance camera that clearly showed the defendants committing the crime? In that case, the defense might instead try to argue that the defendant's actions were justified, deserved, or shouldn't be a crime at all. They might argue that the law was unjust, that the victim deserved or provoked the crime, or that the poor misguided defendant was engaging in harmless mischief only to be caught up in brutal government overreach. Technically, none of that is relevant to the jury. Legally, their role is to determine whether someone did the things they were accused of, not to make judgments about whether or not those things should be illegal. But in practice, there's no checks or balances or controls on the jury's fact-finding ability. If all twelve jurors can agree to vote "not guilty", then as far as the legal system is concerned, the crime didn't happen, period. There's no mechanism for delving into why the jury voted the way they did; they're supposed to decide based on the facts of the case, but there's no way to ensure that and there's no mechanism for overturning things if it's proven that they didn't. If a white guy murders a black guy right in front of a surveillance camera that clearly shows both faces as well as the actual murder, but twelve jurors vote "not guilty" anyway, then that's it as far as the legal system is concerned - the jury, the ultimate fact-finding authority, says the defendant didn't do it, and that's final. That is the mechanism for jury nullification: if there's no way you could possibly convince a jury that your client didn't commit the crime, you still might be able to convince the jury that they should rule "not guilty" despite the fact that your client committed the crime, and there's really nothing the legal system can do about it. It can't even be appealed, because the decision of a jury is final and holds even into appeals, and double jeopardy prevents someone from being tried again on charges they've been acquitted of. Jury nullification occupies an uncomfortable and unsteady spot in US law. Courts hate it, since it's essentially the jury secretly deciding that the law just doesn't count today, but higher courts are reluctant to outright endorse the idea that it shouldn't ever happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
american plea bargains are shady as hell
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Jose posted:american plea bargains are shady as hell The american legal system is hosed in a lot of ways. It shows extreme favoritism to the wealthy and white people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's often ambiguous, yes, but the way this trial went was remarkably clear-cut example. The defense didn't really attempt to argue that their client didn't commit the crime - they attempted to argue that if their client did commit the crime, they would have been justified in doing so. Something like that is pretty much irrelevant outside of nullification arguments, which is why the judge tried to prohibit the defense attorneys from making that argument. Unfortunately, the defense appears to have realized that the judge was trying to prevent nullification arguments, and purposely ran afoul of that to make it look like the government was being mean to them. That just shows the difficulty of policing human factors without any real checks or balances. "jury nullification" can also be a no confidence vote in the trial itself. for example here the prosecutor and judge were (justifiably) running all over the defense and preventing them from putting forth arguments. as a juror, if you see that kind of unification would you not be tempted to vote not guilty because you don't believe anything presented in the trial anymore? this is how OJ was found not guilty - the jury couldn't believe anything that the lapd touched based on their behavior at trial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
^^^^ I would argue that isn't nullification. That is the introduction of doubt that seemed reasonable to the jury. I would argue that the OJ trial was lost for a whole bunch of other reasons (it is a facinating study of a prosecutor who wasn't prepared for a very unconventional defense, in this cae, one who wouldn't waive time on a murder case). Main Paineframe posted:It's often ambiguous, yes, but the way this trial went was remarkably clear-cut example. The defense didn't really attempt to argue that their client didn't commit the crime - they attempted to argue that if their client did commit the crime, they would have been justified in doing so. Something like that is pretty much irrelevant outside of nullification arguments, which is why the judge tried to prohibit the defense attorneys from making that argument. Unfortunately, the defense appears to have realized that the judge was trying to prevent nullification arguments, and purposely ran afoul of that to make it look like the government was being mean to them. That just shows the difficulty of policing human factors without any real checks or balances. I get more worried when we talk about making significant changes to the way we do jury trials in a way that hurts the defense because some dude we hate walks. My point is determining at what point the defense goes from "my client couldn't have done this because he's awesome" to "my client may have done this, but who cares because he's awesome" is a hard line to draw and if stricter rules were imposed against jury nullification, it is much more likely that the rules will be used against the former. It is already hard enough to paint your average defendant in a postive light. nm has issued a correction as of 16:13 on Aug 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
coathat posted:You're hosed in the head Hi, government employee here. Can you explain why it is okay for someone to point a gun at me, say he has beaded in a headshot, and brag about it on video? If there is a legal reason my life suddeny doesn't matter, I've missed it, but I'm sure you will be able to set me straight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
If that reason is "no violence took place, this was not actually that bad, we're just looking out for our rights," could you then tell me why I have no right to reciprocate with assurances that violations will be met with violence?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
nm posted:^^^^ right, it's not nullification. I meant more that that's probably what happened here. lacking more detail; it's likely they didn't think "pointing guns at people should be legal" but "well I never trusted the Feds and this all looks pretty fishy"
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Final question, can you explain why the Bundys felt like they were exempt from paying me for using my land? You and I - all of us - jointly own that federal land in Nevada. I pay each April 15th to have it surveyed, patrolled, maintained. I also pay a little into the cost transfer pool of funding Nevada uses to maintain access roads to that land. I expect compensation for the use of that land. I'm happy Bundy wants to use it; ranching is a good business. I'm happy that the land is available for the Bundy's use, thanks to the tax I pay to maintain that land, provide access to that land, and pay for the disability checks and other social safety net programs some of the Bundy family members use and have used to remain productive members of society. Where's the problem with Bundy paying that forward? Why does he feel that he can avoid contributing to the revenue that maintains this mutually beneficial arrangement, wherein I pay to maintain the land in its fallow so it's available for commercial interests when they want it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
I paid for this bridge via federal contribution to road maintenance. Where's my money?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:right, it's not nullification. I meant more that that's probably what happened here. lacking more detail; it's likely they didn't think "pointing guns at people should be legal" but "well I never trusted the Feds and this all looks pretty fishy" They're both possible in this case. It is possible that some jurors thought one thing and the others the other.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I paid for this bridge via federal contribution to road maintenance. Where's my money? Clearly a photoshop by the evil Feds -someone that shows up for federal jury duty in Nevada (probably)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Hi, government employee here. Yes you've changed my mind the government should murder its citizens with drones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
The problem with the American justice system is that sometimes people don't get locked up in insane rape fortresses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted: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. Just want to reiterate this statement is still bullshit. It's not a feature (desireable, intended) or a bug (unforseen failure of design). It's more a "cost of doing business" and "rules of reality" sort of situation. It would be great if it didn't happen, the people who designed the system certainly didn't want it to happen, it's just that it's pretty much an avoidable side effect of other things we do want, and the cost of resolving the problem would be too great. But if the designers of the system had the option of "every other benefit is preserved but you do away with jury nullification" they would have done, it's not a feature, it's just that we can't always get everything we want.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
nm posted:It is kind of black magic, but a big part of it is showmanship. The real art of jury selection is being able to preview your case to the jury (witgin fairly restrictive confines) and see who reacts positively to it. It is the type of thing that comes with experence, not cooercing people to plea to drug charges because they'll get 2000 years if they go to trial and lose. Thanks this is interesting. I read that this most recent trial in Nevada took 2 months. Were the jurors sitting there that whole time?! I'm fairly civic-minded but I'd probably hate everyone on both sides after two weeks of jury duty, let alone two months. I can definitely see how someone could spitefully vote not guilty in that circumstance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The american legal system is hosed in a lot of ways. It shows extreme favoritism to the wealthy and white people. in the UK pleading guilty generally gets a fixed percentage of your maximum time served taken away and thats it
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Hi, government employee here. Your life matters, and these people are terrible. Calling for general hick death plays into a very old kind of classism which I think is counter-productive. The Bundys, and acts if violence against people like you, are symptoms of a widespread problem in America, but that problem is not rurality, and its solution is not to stare down and whisper "no."
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
as someone not in the US i'm all for the US government brutally massacring these people
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Thanks this is interesting. It depends on the case. Like where I worked, we generally had at least 1 day where trials didn't happen (generally so the court could do other business). Jurors did not come in that day. Pretrial motions can take a while as well and that happens before the jury is picked or comes to court. But yeah, you tend to spend a lot of time at the courthouse. It is why need to make it as easy as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Did I say kill anyone with a drawl a pickup and a ged? Anyone who wants to have an armed standoff for godemperor trump when that time comes can be placed in the appropriate bin of their choosing
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
is it possible to take advantage of the free food and stuff like in that one simpsons episode?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Thanks this is interesting. Not usually 8 hour days but what other guy said. And yeah every week a courthouse is open til it's resolved. You know what they say: jury boxes are full of people too dumb to get out of jury duty. I sat on one and it was about a week m-f
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
Jose posted:is it possible to take advantage of the free food and stuff like in that one simpsons episode? Here they give you a per diem for lunch and that's about it. If there's donuts and coffee i don't recall. Probably depends on the courthouse
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 17:24
|
|