• Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Jury nullification is the term for when a jury declines to convict a defendant despite overwhelming evidence of guilt. This can be a form of civil disobedience, a political statement against a specific law, or a show of empathy and support to the defendant.

    “It’s not a legal defense sanctioned under the law,” said Cheryl Bader, associate professor of law at Fordham School of Law. “It’s a reaction by the jury to a legal result that they feel would be so unjust or morally wrong that they refuse to impose it, despite what the law says.”

    Over the centuries, American juries have nullified cases related to controversial topics like fugitive slave laws, Prohibition and, in recent decades, the war on drugs.

    Giggity.

  • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    Juries also have acquitted some abused women who killed or attacked their husbands, such as Francine Hughes, leading to a wider recognition of what’s known as battered woman syndrome.

    “Juries recognized that before the law did,” Conrad said. “The law is slow to change. Sometimes society changes much more quickly than the law, and that is when jury nullification should come in … We don’t need to have 18th-century law governing 21st-century behavior, and the jury can say so.”

    New phrase added to the American lexicon in 2025 - battered patient syndrome.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I prefer quality journalism, not paying for the shit CNN generally churns out. Are you really suggesting it’s worth paying for CNN? We’re not exactly talking about Deutsche Welle here in terms of journalistic integrity and serious reporting just because they have the occasional decent article.

  • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    “This is not a case of (Mangione) like throwing blood on this guy as he’s walking into the convention,” Bader said, referring to the scene of the shooting outside an investors’ conference in Midtown Manhattan. “If the jury finds that there’s evidence that he ended this man’s life in cold blood, I don’t see the result being an acquittal because of anger toward the health insurance system.”

    Dumbass

      • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 hour ago

        It happens, no worries. That’s why I usually comment instead of delete with Rule 4

        • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Appreciate it. I swear most news sites will change a title 3, 4 times after publication these days. Must have some shit to do with SEO or something.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 minutes ago

            Sounds to me like either:

            • Rule 4 should be rescinded
            • The link should always be to a timestamped archived version so that the title remains consistent
            • A bot should be created that verifies that the title was accurate at the time of posting
            • Some kind of Lemmy functionality should be created that automatically polls and updates the post title when the article title changes.
  • theUwUhugger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    I am going to cross fingers for it, but wouldn’t the state just resue in a higher court?

    I really don’t think that even a dem controlled supreme court would allow it, but a republican one? We will be lucky if Luigi isn’t yahoo-ed

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      3 hours ago

      It’s not a law suit. It’s a criminal trial. The principal of double jeopardy says that an acquittal by a jury is final. The defendant can’t be charged over the same crime again. They go free and clear.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Which is why it’s a little crazy that they’re hitting him with both 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder in one go. If he goes free, wouldn’t this mean they couldn’t try charging him under 1st or 2nd?

        • Z3k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Ok this one needs explaining to me as a non American isn’t there different criteria for 1st and second degree?

          • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            56 minutes ago

            The charges for murder vary by State. Here’s a New York lawyer explaining Murder 1 vs Murder 2 as it relates to New York State law. Murder 2 is regular premeditated murder. Murder 1 is murder with the intent of influencing or intimidating government ie. Terrorism. The lawyer in this interview suggests the Terrorism charge is, ironically, politically motivated, but it will be difficult to actually prove beyond a doubt that Luigi’s intentions were to change government policies and not just get even with someone he disliked.

            In most places murder 1 is premeditated murder and murder 2 is manslaughter. Murder 1 in New York is different.

          • Steve@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 hour ago

            The jury makes a decision on both separately.
            Charging with both gives the jury 2 options. If they don’t think it was premeditated and planned enough to convict on 1st degree, they can choose to convict on 2nd degree instead.

            If the prosecution only charged him with 1st degree, the jury wouldn’t have any other option. And if acquitted on 1st, he couldn’t be tried again under 2nd degree.

            • Z3k3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              55 minutes ago

              So time/money saving excersize? Don’t get 1st saves doing the whole circus again for 2nd

              Thanks

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      3 hours ago

      wouldn’t the state just resue in a higher court?

      No, because the constitution prohibits double jeopardy.

      • theUwUhugger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Pls correct me, but you can challenge a ruling for mistrials, can’t you?

        And the higher court decides the legitimacy of the prev ruling, right?

        • kn33@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          34 minutes ago

          Mistrials and appeals only work for a guilty verdict. They aren’t an option for a not guilty verdict.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Jury nullification means acquittal, and you cannot retry someone after acquittal.

          Also prosecutors generally cannot appeal an acquittal.

        • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          Non-lawyer but…

          If a jury comes to a conclusion then the defendant is not guilty then it’s game over. A mistrial had to be called before deliberation happen, and that would have to have some material misconduct during the trial, not just ‘I think we gonna lose’. A guilty verdict could be appealed but that appeal is only to decide if the case was conducted fairly (for a retrial request) or to assess the validity of a sentence.

          Basing it off some time I did a lot of legal/court adjacent work for a few years, but I’m pretty sure that’s right.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Assuming the trial results in a hung jury the state can refile the case over and over again - but if the outcome isn’t viewed as a fluke then it’s just a huge waste of money.

          To clarify a hung jury and jury nullification are different things. The most likely outcome is probably a hung jury and I’d rate a non-guilty declaration as more likely than a guilty declaration.