Jury Nullification is like the secret code of the US justice system.That’s why most of the people that work for the system absolutely despised the whole idea.
It can cut both ways though, it was used in the South in favor of racists.
I’ll keep that in mind next time we have some influence over policy.
In a sense, its the system functioning as it should. If you have a healthy democratic society with good principals, juries should acquit people for things that may be crimes but are perfectly reasonable and justified.
I’m sure the GOP will figure out how to get rid of it soon enough
They would have to get rid of juries altogether.
Given that our current legal system was created as a direct reaction to star chambers and baked into the constitution, they have an uphill climb, at the least.
No, they will do what they do everywhere else and stack the decks so that nullification is only ever used for “their people”.
Why should law enfocement and prosecuters get to decide which laws to enforce and which not to, but jurrors cant?
Unless the laws on the books were short and perfect, there is always going to be enforcement choices, and it seems to me the jury nulification option is no worse than other selective enforcement. It lets guilty people go free, sure, but it sometimes stops unjust incarceration.
It’s a great mechanism for “peer review” especially in the sense that ethics and legality are often entirely different things.
What is Jury Nullification?
Basically a jury can legally decide to nullify by declaring “not guilty” regardless of the facts or the judge’s instructions, etc. This is why even mentioning jury nullification during a trial can really upset the judge and the prosecution. It is supposed to be something every jury is aware of, but that is usually not actually the case.
That whole “a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich” was when you could pull your jurors out of a citizen pool that didn’t walk in already believing you were lying through your fucking teeth.
But then they pulled the mask off, and let us all see how they are using the courts for vindictive prosecution and political harassment.
Looks like the ham sammich days are ending, lol.
It all started when someone threw the sandwich at ice.
I imagine all cases prosecuted for destruction of networked Flock and Axios cameras are going to struggle to get through a jury. It’s a clear privacy violation and everyone knows it.
While you are right, there are almost no laws in the US that protect privacy. Short of being in your own home with the blinds down, there is next to nothing working in your favor. The assumption is that you’re in “public” or clear view of the public, thusly, screw you.
Your pool? Clear view from the road. That douchenozzle with a drone, probably not breaking the law when he takes a video flying over. “Oh, I was looking at my own roof” or some bullshit.
There should be privacy laws. The world has changed so much, but most laws are stuck in the stone age and now sold to the highest bidder who actively monetizes the complete lack of privacy laws.
In the US, you can look up TONS of details about anyone’s house. From the sale price, the tax history, tons of details about it and even photos of the inside. In what normal world does that make sense?! Your employer sells your salary data to ADP who then sells it to any number of others. What the actual fuck?! Nobody asked for this, it’s opt-out only but the opt out expires. I did it a few years ago, and it’s back on again.
If privacy were not important, then there should not be bathroom doors.
We have legal precedent that the police cannot use GPS trackers. A similar case was opened for the APLs in traditional speed cameras, but they were determined to be constitutional since you have no expectation of privacy on a public road and a camera can’t be used to track you like GPS. The networked APLs accomplish the same result as GPS trackers just without technically using a GPS tracker.
Is this not what an ankle monitor is?
There are plenty of privacy laws, but the catch is that you have to make an effort to create privacy. Putting your blinds down creates privacy. Building a roof over your pool and walls around your yard create privacy. There is just no expectation of privacy in public, and technically anything that can be seen from public is “in plain view”. Protecting your privacy is not a function of the state unless you had an expectation of privacy through explicit disclaimer or honest effort.
This definition of “privacy” just makes it an addon of property rights, rather than a human right.
How truly American.
Wait wait… explain this ADP thing. How do I opt out?
Go here: https://employees.theworknumber.com/. Create account log in, surf through myriad of pages to find the way to opt out. It’s in there somewhere.
But if you are in public and i follow you nonstop, keeping track of where and when you go…well you would say i was stalking you. Why is it bad for me but ok for a network of cameras.
We need 1 good lawyer to argue this case.
You know what, the people are alright.
They always bring up that quote about being able to indict a ham sandwich but they never specify the charges.
Also doesn’t apply if that’s ham as in cop.
For once, the law was working.
Of course they didn’t indict him.
I was having ribs with this dude. Couldn’t have been him.
Saw my first one knocked over yesterday. Cheered.
I believe the grand jury system is working as intended
There is zero information on why they didn’t indict, so I’m not celebrating until we find out why.
It could be that the software isn’t accurate enough to be evidence on its own. Similar to how identifying someone in a lineup is notoriously inaccurate. They may be able to use it for probably cause in a search warrant, but without other supporting evidence, they may not have a case.
The article mentions felony charges - it could also or instead be that it was too high a bar (pun intended) to indict when it should have been a misdemeanor vandalism charge.
If that’s the case, being thrown out by a grand jury is basically being thrown out for being insufficient for probable cause. But that’s again why I want the details to know if it’s some sort of technicality or some major flaw to the argument.
I agree. It would be nice to know why, but I’d imagine we’ll never know. We can just speculate.
It is a grand jury. That is the practice round for a trial. The prosecutor goes over the evidence and explains what argument they are going to make in court without the defendent or their lawyer present to argue against it. The role of a grand jury is to pump the prosecutor up and say “You got this. I would totally believe you if I was on a real jury.”
The fact that in this case, the grand jury said “That is stupid. You have no argument. Just let the guy walk,” means that either the prosecutor is an incompetent idiot who did not understand what evidence he was presenting or the jury thought that no crime had been committed.
It’s not a practice round for a trial. It is the first safety check of “Is there even plausibly enough evidence to go to trial?” or more specifically “If everything the prosecutin is claiming is true, is that enough for a trial?” which is why it nearly always is.
I highly disagree with your assessment, and it sounds like you don’t really understand the courts. Now, you may be simplifying, and if so, then my ‘accusation’ is off-base, so don’t take it too seriously.
I’m no legal expert, but I’ve followed enough to see how 99% of legal representations on television (i.e. court dramas) are laughably inaccurate.
So I go back to my point - like when see a real judge on a youtube video of a courtroom proceeding and they do a probable cause hearing - basically similar principles to a grand jury - it matters why they throw something out. It matters a lot. Is it a technicality that they can overcome and resubmit the case, or is it a fundamental flaw?
I looked online, and I’m kind of disappointed that there aren’t any nearby where I live. I want to do my part!
Holy shit. Over 40 have gone up within 4 miles of my house in the last 3 months.
Then they are either being discussed by your local government to be installes or they already subscribed to one of the equivelant compeditors. This shit is everywhere.
deleted by creator
Is there a specific site that lists them?
I just used “have I been flocked”
FlockHopper is a great way to see where they’re going up around you. You know, for avoiding them and NOTHING ELSE.
You heard em boys, not a crime. Get after it!
damn things should never have been built in the first place
But they were. And now the resolution needs to not only include removing the cameras but also the freedoms from those who have been blatantly violating the rights of millions of Americans. From the oligarchs, the senators involved, the council members who got paid off, to every single employee in between that chose to go to work for these companies knowing full well their objective.
Federal charges
100% Ohio will go after him now.
