|
coathat posted:The problem with the American justice system is that sometimes people don't get locked up in insane rape fortresses. I thought you were just bothered by mass murder rhetoric, but now I'm confused and worried. Are you saying that this trial had a good outcome? All parts of the carceral system are used to enforce a racialized caste system complete with legal discrimination, and this was a perfect example. I find it possible to believe that prisons should be abolished, and that these people should have been found guilty.
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
Jose posted:is it possible to take advantage of the free food and stuff like in that one simpsons episode? comped parking and $5 for lunch was what I saw the bailiffs let us know where you could get lunch for exactly $5 at least
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
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" Many cases of nullification aren't "I don't think this law shouldn't exist", they're "I think this law shouldn't apply to this particular case". All-white juries who acquitted lynchers in the deep South didn't think that murder laws were bad, they just thought that the particular murder in question was justified and should be exempted from the usual murder laws. That's what's going on here. There's no question that these guys broke at least some of the laws they were accused of violating - the evidence is overwhelming. But the jury decided that pointing a gun at a federal officer was justified in that particular case and shouldn't be punished, because the defendants were white and talked a lot about how mean the government was. That's nullification, clear and simple.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:comped parking and $5 for lunch was what I saw You got lunch? Motherfucker. Here they just finally opened a second parking lot so all jurors could get free parking rather than paying 20bux to park downtown. I wonder why no one wants to be on a jury. Pay everyone what they make now (or minimum wage if unemployed), assist with childcare issues, pay for lunch and maybe breakfast, give people 6 months notice, and I think attitudes will shift slowly. Right now if you're not a government employee, retired, or union it is a massive suck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:I thought you were just bothered by mass murder rhetoric, but now I'm confused and worried. Are you saying that this trial had a good outcome? All parts of the carceral system are used to enforce a racialized caste system complete with legal discrimination, and this was a perfect example. I find it possible to believe that prisons should be abolished, and that these people should have been found guilty. I know a couple things about the "rape centers" and they aren't too funny. One is that those old Bundy fuckers are not going to be targeted for butt sex. But we really need to have a better mental health system, drug treatment as a mental illness and whatever gun fetish they had during the dark dark times of Obama. Thank the lord for cheeto president
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
nm posted:You got lunch? Motherfucker. we got free terrible coffee too! and if you wanted breakfast I guess you could put part of your $5 towards a pop tart from the vending machine? actual jury duty pay was $7. so we got $12 a day! it would've been terrible if there was more than a day of it
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:we got free terrible coffee too! and if you wanted breakfast I guess you could put part of your $5 towards a pop tart from the vending machine? The one time I was up for jury duty they paid us $40 a day, and I wasn't around long enough to find out whether they'd also spring for lunch or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Just want to reiterate this statement is still bullshit. It's not a feature (desireable, intended) or a bug (unforseen failure of design). The US didn't design the system. It inherited it, and has been patching it ever since. When it was originally put into practice, those 12 Freeman from your local community almost certainly knew you, and were not the completely random group of uninformed people we expect today. It is hard to imagine that they didn't intend for what we consider nullification, when it seems like an ideal system for locals to disregard laws they don't feel like following. Beowulfs_Ghost has issued a correction as of 19:04 on Aug 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
patching is extremely loving badly lol the original case for jury nullification owns as well the jury spent months in jail
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
coathat posted:Yes you've changed my mind the government should murder its citizens with drones. I see your point. We will stop killing citizens with drones. To sweeten the deal, I'll ask Soros to stop putting orgasmophosthates in the black helicopter chemtrails.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I see your point. We will stop killing citizens with drones. To sweeten the deal, I'll ask Soros to stop putting orgasmophosthates in the black helicopter chemtrails. None of the Blackhawks that fly by my house give me orgasms. My tax dollars wasted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
I don't know what I can do about the cruise missile drone that took out the Pentagon during 9/11. As they say, military industrial false flag black operations are hush hush.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Hell, I'm surprised the DNC Operative that killed Seth Rich hasn't taken me out yet for talking abo--
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted: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 No, courts have specifically come to the conclusion that juries specifically have the right to nullify. They have also stated that the defense cannot inform the jury of this. We could potentially try to attack jury nullification by going after defense attorneys who argue too specifically for it; but there's no good way to make it illegal for jurors to do so without overhauling how we do jury trials.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Lotta people defending the prosecution of William Penn ITT.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Lotta people defending the prosecution of William Penn ITT. You mean the case where the judge openly acted unlawfully and tried to deny the jury from hearing the defense's case at all? Which isn't even close to what happened here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:No, courts have specifically come to the conclusion that juries specifically have the right to nullify. They have also stated that the defense cannot inform the jury of this. We could potentially try to attack jury nullification by going after defense attorneys who argue too specifically for it; but there's no good way to make it illegal for jurors to do so without overhauling how we do jury trials. I don't suppose you can cite this caselaw? Kleinman's pretty specific to the contrary. Discendo Vox has issued a correction as of 22:49 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't suppose you can cite this caselaw? Kleinman's pretty specific to the contrary. Kleinman itself supports my position. In the original case the court gave jury instructions suggesting that jury nullification was not allowed. This was appealed and the appellate court found that the court was in error making that statement. They also found that this error was minor enough to not warrant overturning the verdict. quote:Issue(s): “Kleinman argues that the anti-nullification jury instruction the district court gave prior to deliberations misstated the law and impermissibly divested the jury of its power to nullify.” Id. at 835. Source The appeal for US v Dougherty also has a similar progression where the jury was instructed that they do not have the power of jury nullification and this was appealed and the jury instruction was found to be false but did not merit overturning the verdict. Source The appeal for US v Moylan also stated the juries right to nullification. They stated: quote:We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision. Source
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
You're citing a blog run by defense attorneys, which is not an unbiased source on this subject. Kleinman, and all of the other cases you are citing, repeatedly distinguish between the power of juries to nullify, and the right of juries to nullify. These cases also repeatedly state, explicitly, "juries do not have the right to nullification". Notice how eager the authors are to find ways to use this "power", which Kleinman also explicitly holds requires jurors to violate their oaths. Note how the authors caution defense attorney readers to be careful not to say "right"! They're giving this advice because they and their audience seek ways to induce nullification. Platystemon posted: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 26, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Dougherty has some lovely as gently caress analogiesquote:The statement that avowal of the jury's prerogative runs the risk of anarchy, represents, in all likelihood, the habit of thought of philosophy and logic, rather than the prediction of the social scientist. But if the statement contains an element of hyperbole, the existence of risk and danger, of significant magnitude, cannot be gainsaid. In contrast, the advocates of jury "nullification" apparently assume that the articulation of the jury's power will not extend its use or extent, or will not do so significantly or obnoxiously. Can this assumption fairly be made? We know that a posted limit of 60 m.p.h. produces factual speeds 10 or even 15 miles greater, with an understanding all around that some "tolerance" is acceptable to the authorities, assuming conditions warrant. But can it be supposed that the speeds would stay substantially the same if the speed limit were put: Drive as fast as you think appropriate, without the posted limit as an anchor, a point of departure?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You're citing a blog run by defense attorneys, which is not an unbiased source on this subject. quote:Kleinman, and all of the other cases you are citing, repeatedly distinguish between the power of juries to nullify, and the right of juries to nullify. These cases also repeatedly state, explicitly, "juries do not have the right to nullification". And the blog says that too. Nothing in that blog is counter to Kleinman. I think you just have a problem with defense attorneys. How many times have you asked "how can you defend those people?" Whether or not jury nullification is "illegal" is a red herring. The 9th circuit's right v. power is the right way to address it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
nm posted:Yes, because you are! please nm dv is a Bad Poster who spent a long time touting his Law Knowledge in dnd only to fail the bar please dont waste your time on him youre too good for this world
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:The appeal for US v Moylan also stated the juries right to nullification. They stated: This pretty much sums up why I said nullification is in an uncomfortable position in US law. This decision does not recognize a right to nullify, and in fact, it expressly questions it. However, it clearly recognizes the jury's power to nullify, as well as the fact that there isn't really anything that can be done about that power while protecting the jury's rights and Independence. It complains that such a power is at odds with the very existence of a legal system, but resigns itself to the fact that while it can be discouraged, it can't be removed without compromising the jury system as it exists today. quote:15 No less an authority than Dean Pound has expressed the opinion that "Jury lawlessness is the great corrective of law in its actual administration." However, this is not to say that the jury should be encouraged in their "lawlessness," and by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You're citing a blog run by defense attorneys, which is not an unbiased source on this subject. Kleinman, and all of the other cases you are citing, repeatedly distinguish between the power of juries to nullify, and the right of juries to nullify. These cases also repeatedly state, explicitly, "juries do not have the right to nullification". You are correct about the power versus right distinction and I was being a bit loose there. But the point is thst it is not illegal for a jury to do so. They do have the power to nullify and they can not be punished for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
nm posted:How many times have you asked "how can you defend those people?" Never. Show me a post where I have. What I've continuously objected to is methods. What I object to is attorneys intentionally violating court rules and attempting to get juries to violate their vows by nullification- which the attorneys clearly have been doing across this whole series of cases. There are other means and forms of defense representation. There are other, better ways to address the imbalanced nature of prosecution versus defense. Raldikuk posted:You are correct about the power versus right distinction and I was being a bit loose there. But the point is that it is not illegal for a jury to do so. They do have the power to nullify and they can not be punished for it. There is a difference between having the power to do something and it being legal to exercise that power. That difference is vitally important to the functioning of society. The law is not whatever you can get away with. Discendo Vox has issued a correction as of 04:32 on Aug 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
it actually is, you idiot
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
lmao at anyone devoting years of their life to the law when the only law of substance derives from the bullet and the bayonet
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
If your client destroyed evidence, that could be to his favour. That doesn’t mean any lawyer should advise their client to do it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Never. Show me a post where I have. What I've continuously objected to is methods. What I object to is attorneys intentionally violating court rules and attempting to get juries to violate their vows by nullification- which the attorneys clearly have been doing across this whole series of cases. There are other means and forms of defense representation. There are other, better ways to address the imbalanced nature of prosecution versus defense. If there's a law against something but there's nothing that happens when it's broken "it's against the law" is meaningless numbnuts
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Never. Show me a post where I have. What I've continuously objected to is methods. What I object to is attorneys intentionally violating court rules and attempting to get juries to violate their vows by nullification- which the attorneys clearly have been doing across this whole series of cases. There are other means and forms of defense representation. There are other, better ways to address the imbalanced nature of prosecution versus defense. From the cases I cited they state it is legal for them to exercise their power tho. Jurors cannot be punished for their decisions, period. That is the system we have. I do agree that the attorneys who do the jury nullification tactic are in the wrong; I simply disagree that it is illegal for a jury to use the power of nullification. Platystemon posted:If your client destroyed evidence, that could be to his favour. Destroying evidence is actually explicitly illegal tho? I get the idea that something can be illegal yet never prosecuted. That isn't the case for jury nullification though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Nullification threatens the sanctity of law, in much the same way as (for example) a Supreme Court judge twisting logic and ignoring the laws in order to rule in a way that suits their political preferences. In both cases, it's not really illegal and can't be meaningfully punished, but it is absolutely a violation of their oaths and of their role in the justice system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:From the cases I cited they state it is legal for them to exercise their power tho. Jurors cannot be punished for their decisions, period. That is the system we have. I do agree that the attorneys who do the jury nullification tactic are in the wrong; I simply disagree that it is illegal for a jury to use the power of nullification. In Kleinman, the language struck down was "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case." It might seem like, by striking this language, the court is asserting that nullification is legally permissible. However, the reason the language was struck down was because the language could be read to imply that either 1) the jurors could face punishment for nullification, or that 2) the resulting not guilty verdict would be invalid. The decision separately asserts that 1) the duty of jurors is to follow court instructions and apply the law to the facts of the case, and 2) this duty is a legal duty. It's illegal, the court just can't do anything about it if they don't find out about it before a verdict occurs, and they can't monitor deliberations to check for it. Raldikuk posted:Destroying evidence is actually explicitly illegal tho? I get the idea that something can be illegal yet never prosecuted. That isn't the case for jury nullification though. Rules of conduct for lawyers are complicated and can vary by jurisdiction, but under the model rules promulgated by the ABA, it's separately a violation to a) tell your client to destroy evidence, b) disrupt a court proceeding, c) knowingly break court rules except under specific circumstances and by specific means (to create a record for appeal, basically), or d) try to prejudice the proceeding by talking to the press about events in the case (with a bunch of exceptions). There's a lot of gray area within these rules (especially the press communication one), and in many circumstances it makes sense not to apply them because it's difficult to fully prove that the lawyer is breaking them, and there are a lot of circumstances where it's arguable that the attorney has some permissible intention. Such was not the circumstance in the cases involving the Bundy family and their supporters. Even if none of the other rules were applied, it was clear to pretty much everyone following these cases that the lawyers were intentionally violating court rules, and advising their clients to violate court rules, with the goal of getting the jury to nullify (a violation of court rules). Under these extraordinary circumstances, mistrial and discipline makes sense. Discendo Vox has issued a correction as of 06:27 on Aug 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
How about we just let defense attorneys and juries to talk about it and call it a "harmless error" if it ever comes up?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
Shut the gently caress up dv
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
The problem in this case wasn't 'jury nullification' in the abstract, it's the fact that the juries were buddy-buddy with the defendants and categorically refused to judge the case on its merits. It was 100% a political act, of denying justice to a violent, gun-totting right-wing militia, on account of them being right-wing white guys. Had the jury members been representative of the country as a whole, they bundy crew wouldn't have walked, they'd be rotting in prison. That's the center of the problem here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
Breaking news: A jury of crypto-Nazis has just ruled that 'Hitler did nothing wrong'. What does this mean for the jurisprudence on jury nullification?!?!
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The problem in this case wasn't 'jury nullification' in the abstract, it's the fact that the juries were buddy-buddy with the defendants and categorically refused to judge the case on its merits. and now they might all get murdered the next time they decide to push their luck lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:please nm dv is a Bad Poster who spent a long time touting his Law Knowledge in dnd only to fail the bar If everybody starts ignoring the Bad Posters things are gonna get real quiet around here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
Facebook Aunt posted:If everybody starts ignoring the Bad Posters things are gonna get real quiet around here. He is exceptionally so
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
Jose posted:and now they might all get murdered the next time they decide to push their luck lol Do you mean because the feds know that's the only way to stop them now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 09:46
|
|
