this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
56 points (91.2% liked)

AskUSA

166 readers
164 users here now

About

Community for asking and answering any question related to the life, the people or anything related to the USA. Please keep in mind:

  1. !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world - politics in our daily lives is inescapable, but please post overtly political things there rather than here
  2. !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com - similarly things with the goal of overt agitation have their place, which is there rather than here

Rules

  1. Be nice or gtfo
  2. Discussions of overt political or agitation nature belong elsewhere
  3. Follow the rules of discuss.online

Sister communities

  1. !askuk@feddit.uk
  2. !ukcasual@lemmy.world
  3. !casualuk@feddit.uk

Related communities

  1. !asklemmy@lemmy.world
  2. !asklemmy@sh.itjust.works
  3. !nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
  4. !showerthoughts@lemmy.world

founded 1 week ago
MODERATORS
 

Let's address the elephant in the room

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The thing about jury nullification is that it isn't a checkbox.

For example you could argue that the OJ Simpson murder trial was a case of jury nullification. It probably wasn't, the jury just came to a conclusion many people disagree with. In fact OJ was found guilty in the civil trial. Was it truly just the difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "a preponderance of evidence"? Or was it jury nullification? Or were the jury idiots? (In which case?)

Rodney King was beaten by police officers but ultimately acquitted, was that jury nullification?

Kyle Rotten shot people but was ultimately acquitted, was that jury nullification?

Additionally, the same law that allows for jury nullification also allows for the opposite situation. Someone who definitely didn't commit the crime still being convicted.

I'm sure there are plenty of cases where an "unfair" verdict is rendered. Proving actual jury nullification is difficult, unless jurors actively speak out about it, which even then can be risky.

[–] Blaze 4 points 1 week ago
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Reminder that the Nazi cop that found the most damning evidence in the OJ trial was literally a Nazi cop.

I'd have acquited on the basis of reasonable doubt as well.