751
Food Not Bombs trial rescheduled after too many jurors objected to $500 fine for feeding homeless (www.houstonchronicle.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
157 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Too many of the potential jurors said that even if the defendant, Elisa Meadows, was guilty, they were unwilling to issue the $500 fine a city attorney was seeking, said Ren Rideauxx, Meadows' attorney.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

Only after they’re empaneled. There’s nothing preventing the education of jurors on the subject beforehand…

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    You're not wrong, but when you get selected for jury duty the selecting lawyer will make inquiries about your knowledge on the subject and disqualify you if you admit knowing about it.

    If you bring it up to the jury, that can also have you disqualified as well as anyone else the lawyers think were influenced by the discussion.

    The third option is supposed to 'naturally' occurr, as in the jury agrees that the law was broken but the situation is so 'outside the scope of the law' that the law can no longer be applied. (IIRC the judge can overrule the jury in this case, but it can be a pain)

    Essentially it's up to the judge to determine whether the jury's conclusion is within the realm of the 'third option'.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah. That’s why people, who could be jurors, should be generally educated on the subject.

    I was trying to be subtle.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Which is why you just say you don't believe the prosecutors proved the case. Also, there's supposed to be a limit on the number of jurors lawyers can dismiss, for exactly this reason. They're spending well more than the cost of the fine just trying to empanel a jury at this point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If we wanted a justice system that didn't waste money, we'd be authoritarian in nature.

    The money wasted is to insure 'as even a case' as possible, regardless of the crime.

    That's the idea anyway.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    When I say wasting money here, I mean because you're not going to get a guilty verdict. Not in the authoritarian judge dredd sense. In fact, in other articles it's clear the city has brought a bunch of these cases and has gotten zero convictions.

    So it really seems like someone decided they're going to win this one even if they have to go through 100 sessions of jury selection. (They've gone though about 30 so far)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent