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.
Though this happened with the grand jury, which only needs a majority vote (sometimes a supermajority). It means a lot of people chose to nullify or didn’t trust the prosecution to give a fair trial.
Any justice system actually. Common law especially though.
Common Law is better than codified law. That’s the only reason we have juries and don’t just let judges decide the fate of the accused. Can you imagine, in this country, judges the sole decider of your case?
The reason that the UK and US have had such cuntish law enforcement is not because of english common law. It should be noted the UK cancelled some of common law’s basic tenants, like the right to a jury trial, not only afforded to indictable offenses, any crime with less than 3 years imprisonment is decided by their famously haughty aristocratic judges now.
They actually passed that??
Yeah, first the Tories maybe 5-7 years back or so cancelled juries for crimes with less than 1 year imprisonment, then Starmer’s labour party just upped it to all crimes less than 3 years.
In the late 19th century they also passed a law where if they thought jury tampering was going to happen they could just do it with a judge, idk how often they have used it though.
Pretty sure it’s not active yet though, still being discussed?
I was trying to verify where this was, the guardian and reuters in like 2024 or so left me with the impression it was passed, but a cursory search after your inquiry did not find the detail. I had to leave town here, Hopefully I can find out tomorrow morning.
It sounded like they made the new rule but it’s not in force yet from my cursory search that led me to some lackluster guardian article.
Quick edit, the news did say it was passed I am sure. I have been wrong before though on stuff like this.
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.
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.
They don’t care about the constitution man.
Trump will do an executive order, it’ll get tonthe Supreme.Cpurt, and they will just kneelnon it for “time to think about it.” And that will be it, its “the law” now.
Why do people keep pretending the Supreme Court always agrees with Trump. They’ve struck him down often and seem to be taking a very strict constitutionalist view. Most recent example would be the whole birthright citizenship ruling.
Obviously this court is terrible for many reasons, they gutted the voting rights act and ended Roe. But they’re not getting rid of juries their record is clear there
The Supreme Court isn’t going to curb its own power for Trump. Even with three of them permanently hanging off his dick, they’ve shut down literally everything he’s done that could affect them personally.
they will give him a secret trial, or disappear to one of thier concentration camps in the south, which would mostly be texas, and the msms will never ever report on a citizen getting detained, at least not a white one.
No, they will do what they do everywhere else and stack the decks so that nullification is only ever used for “their people”.
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.
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.
I want to know who the two cunts that down voted this are…
Flock employees.
Sometimes you vote wrong by accident and don’t notice.
What does it say? It looks like a blank comment to me. Maybe that’s why they down voted it? I’m viewing it on Thunder, and I guess there are flaws.
It’s an image. Is Thunder text only?
Probably because he was with some of them trading Pokémon cards at the time, couldn’t have been him, everyone has a doppelgänger
Come to think of it, how accurately can facial recognition tell apart to people who look very similar?
Zero. Zero accurately. They don’t even talk about it, because they don’t care. The arbitrary cruelty is a bonus feature.
I bet the manufacturers of these surveillance systems leave a wink wink way for authorities to slip a name in their systems as a hit for something too.
Facial recognition has an inherent bias as well, or at least it did not too long ago. It was mostly trained on white people, so it’s accuracy with non whites was really bad. I’m sure the training data is far more robust now, but that doesn’t necessarily mean better.
This has happened
It can’t.
Also, and I have no idea what race this person is, but facial recognition tents to be even worse when it comes to minority groups, especially black people. Because its more often created and tested by white or asian dudes.
Which has absolutely terrible implications when you consider it gets used for things like Flock, for crimes, which already have a racism problem skewed against black people.
Not at all, but that’s the court’s problem I guess.
If you have a reasonable group of people like a friends and family group, you can get machine learning to be very accurate (with odd exceptions like babies and twins). But what is 99% accurate for 50 people will almost universally give false positives when searching a group of 50 million faces. The math just doesnt work for them.
Nah you are confused he was with me feeding the homeless
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.
I just heard about a prosecutor that didn’t get all of his indictments and then sent the jurors that voted against him home and replaced them. That and other stuff, they aren’t even pretending to follow the rules, they think everything is more openly corrupt than it is yet.
But anyway, the courts threw out like 200 indictments because this prick prosecutor didn’t think he had to follow the rules/didn’t know or care what the rules were.
The Department of Justice has been doing stuff like that a lot since the Trump administration, to the point that they lost presumption of regularity (the assumption in advance that state actors are being honest and following the rules in good faith). There were so many prosecutions that were clearly directed by the White House and were vindictive persecutions of political enemies that the judges just stopped believing anyone from DoJ.
It didn’t help that all the honest prosecutors in DoJ resigned when they were ordered to do something unlawful, resulting in massive brain drain. All the rehires are unskilled if not incompetent, and sometimes they issue legal statements that sound like a Truth Social post.
Holy shit. That’s some arrogance right there, thinking no one would ever know or find out. Grand juries are secret, but they’re not THAT secret.
they think everything is more openly corrupt than it is yet.
You nailed it.
IIRC that instance was so egregious the lawyer that did it’s boss intervened and scrapped the entire grand jury to start over.
It all started when someone threw the sandwich at ice.
For once, the law was working.
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.
Well back in the 90’s a ham sandwich did choke to death some super obese woman celebrity. I don’t know her name I only know of it secondhand because I don’t watch that kind of entertainment television crap that I think she was.
deleted by creator
You think that because you have a defective logic. I comminicated what I was told, I did not endorse it as triue.
You will never achieve literary greatness with your logic here pal.
deleted by creator
I didn’t read past your first sentence, because you already discredited yourself.
I communicated what I was told, I quantified a rumour, I did not qualify it. The fact that you don’t know the difference means you are not worth responding to because you use defective reasoning.
Exactly, twas not merely a ham sandwich, but a decadent smorgasbord of temptation, as charged.
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?
Wait wait… explain this ADP thing. How do I opt out?
Companies are trying to prevent people switching jobs to get raises by creating a central database of all employees and their salaries. That way, when you try to find a new job they can pull up your salary history and not accidentally give you a 40% bump when your desperation factor clearly shows you’ll settle for 10%.
I assume adp is just one of those companies doing this, and you opt out by not participating in the economy.
Plus blacklist, which happens accidentally with ai recruiters now
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.
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.
Just adding here, what is clear to all of us as Coaster indicated, that aggregate privacy and anonymity are what is really at stake here.
Sure, I’m in public and just walking around. I don’t have a right to privacy in those instants. Some jerk with a camera is within their rights to capture my image.
The other aspect of the laws, though, is that even a few years ago, that image was of an anonymous person. The photographer didn’t know who I was and couldn’t find out without asking me and if a cop wanted that picture they had to request it from the taker. Now, though, that image can be shuffled off to a giant datacenter to be processed and potentially figure out who I am, coordinating the time, place, clothing, activities, nearby people, and myriad other details and the tech companies have no problem handing it over that information without any of the humans ever knowing.
I think the simplest solution is that any LEO querying a company’s data about a private entity should require a warrant or subpoena. Data sharing agreements between companies and governments should be illegal.
The longer solution is that collecting and retaining this information “for business purposes” needs to be more heavily regulated. The current definitions of PII are out of date. PII should include things like location, likeness, mood, etc, and the history of those things. Look at what Walmart and others are doing with dynamic pricing, for example.
Exactly. So juries will make their own decisions.
Looks like Flock is back on the menu!
…boys!
And girls!
And my axe!
You know what, the people are alright.
Of course they didn’t indict him.
I was having ribs with this dude. Couldn’t have been him.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda been Luigi too
Good point. If I’m not mistaken, court juries can still pass a jury nullification for Luigi Mangione, right?
He entered a guilty plea.
I’m honestly surprised he did that. If I was him I would not trust the state to uphold its end of the plea bargain. I’d much rather take my chances with a jury.
He didn’t get a bargain either.
It was to get the NY charges dropped. Which is stupid as fuck, double jeopardy should not be allowed
I already thought Luigi was a fall guy, but that kinda sealed the deal for me.
I believe the grand jury system is working as intended
For once yes. Grand Juries at the time of the Constitution were a safeguard against arbitrary and unjust prosecutions. The rulers have since changed what a grand jury is to make it the opposite, a tool of the prosecutors.
Luckily the prosecutors for this administration are so arrogant and incompetent they haven’t been able to maintain that facade of trustworthiness which the masses still afford to dickheads in suits with position.
Of course the judges are so bad it often doesn’t matter, especially when it’s in a shitholy jurisdiction, like those protesters at the Texas Ice that got kangarooed by their dipshit hanging judge down there under preposterous, blatantly unconstitutional charges, cancelling the 1st amendment.
Curiously, when I was drafted into jury duty here in California, we were shown a video that said something like The people are society’s last line of defense against bad law.
I took it personally, figuring it was my duty to not enforce any law that was unjust or protect any institution that was cruel. But I didn’t get selected.
i was in JD last sept, it was a burglary case about a AA person, almost everyone used a variation of NULLIFICATION to get out of it. Also in cali, they try very hard to keep these people around. the only ones that excuse quickly is the one that already had professional knowledge of the law(lawyer from germany), and a lady who was in a case where she was a victm.
Things have improved! Once I was rejected because I answered truthfully about whether I’d always vote for the law as written.
Saw my first one knocked over yesterday. Cheered.
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?
That man did us a favor
That grand jury.
FTFY
Nah, destroying those mass surveillance cameras is a public duty. One I don’t have the cojones to do, but a public duty nonetheless.
These are on public land without adequate public consultation… therefore they are “litter” and anyone removing them is doing a public service.
facts
Why not both?
Fair. Point conceited.
