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
[–] 3 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

Uhh, no. That's not how it works.:

According to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sparf v. U.S., written by Justice Harlan, juries have no right to ignore the law when rendering the jury's verdict. However, nullification still occurs in some instances because of the secrecy of jury deliberations. It is difficult to determine if a jury negates the law, especially in close cases.

If it was up to judges, it would never be allowed, and cases would go to appeal or retrial if it happens. It only continues because jury deliberations are private. If judges found out, they would toss it.

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

    You've just proven that the SCOTUS decision is fully unenforceable, which means that jury nullification is the de facto law of the land.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    It's not. People blab about it a lot. Often right during jury selection, which makes it easy.

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

    Yeah, is this the same SCOTUS that says women have to die if their pregnancy fucks up?

    We should probably stop letting judges make laws. They don't run this place, we do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments