United States | News & Politics

7382 readers

623 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

196

What is jury nullification and what does it mean for Luigi Mangione’s defense? (edition.cnn.com)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (23 children)

Lemmy's not gonna like what I have to say, but jury nullification is simply not going to happen here. It will require the entire jury to agree, and as popular as this POV is here on Lemmy, I sincerely doubt you will be able to sneak 12 NYC jurors through jury selection that are inclined to do this. Maybe for some other non-violent crime, but not for walking up to a man in front of the Hilton and shooting him dead, no matter what his rationale is. They all walk down Sixth Avenue regularly, they're not gonna all agree to hold this guy unaccountable for murder in broad daylight. (Particularly when they all mocked Trump for saying he could get away with it, one avenue over.)

Now, it is possible that one person might sneak on the jury who finds that Mangione is a sympathetic figure, and insists on not convicting him. But that is a different situation. When the jury is at a fundamental impasse and can't agree on any verdict (a hung jury) the judge will order a new trial and they do it all over again. And, it's also possible for Mangione to get let off entirely if the prosecutors are morons and make fundamental errors. (Case in point: Trump's Georgia trial, where Trump managed to run out the clock due to the prosecution's unforced errors). But if the evidence is really there, I really doubt 12 New Yorkers will agree and say "Yeah, he did it, but shouldn't be punished for it".

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (20 children)

Did you read the article? From the article:

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.>

from NY Courts - Criminal Trial

In a jury trial, after all the testimony has been heard and all the evidence has been presented, the Jury is given instructions on the law by the Judge. The jury then goes to the jury room to deliberate, which means to look at and review all the evidence and testimony. The jury tries to make a decision on whether the defendant is guilty or innocent, which is called reaching a verdict. The verdict must be unanimous, meaning every juror must agree on the verdict. If they can’t all agree, this is called a hung jury, and the Judge will have to declare a mistrial. A mistrial does not mean that the case is over. After a mistrial, the prosecutor can choose to try the case again.>

That means as long as one juror refuses to give in to pressure to convict they can nullify. They don’t need 12. In other words jury nullification <> being found not guilty

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

... the things you quoted don't back up your statement. You quoted:

If they can’t all agree, this is called a hung jury, and the Judge will have to declare a mistrial. A mistrial does not mean that the case is over. After a mistrial, the prosecutor can choose to try the case again.

If they don't all agree, it's a mistrial in NYS, and although he doesn't get convicted right then and there, the State can try the case again. He is still in jeopardy, ~~unless he runs for President, I suppose. That would be a interesting turn~~. (nvm, he is only 26, and can't run for President yet)

The only way for him to be out of legal jeopardy is for all the jurors to agree to let him off. They can do that by agreeing that the State didn't prove it's case adequately enough. Jury Nullification is when the jury says "Yeah, the State proved he did it, but it doesn't matter, it is in the best interests of Justice that he shouldn't be punished". And I really doubt you will get 12 New Yorkers to say that.

If that does happen, the State has very little recourse after that. They can't try him again, and have extremely limited avenues for appeal. (But they can appeal: see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict). One key thing I get from that is that jurors still need to deliver a rationale for their verdict, even if they nullify. If they say "we find him not guilty because of that chisled jawline", with no further justification, that may qualify to get overturned.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If all vote not guilty it’s called an acquittal. If that happens, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, it is jury nullification ending in an acquittal. If a mistrial happens, meaning the jury cannot reach a verdict, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, it is jury nullification ending in a mistrial.

Source: I have been a public defender in NYC for 15 years.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Oh good, you actually know what you are talking about.

Quick question: when the jury renders a verdict, is is only "thumbs up/thumbs down"? Or do they need to give any justification? Can they flat out say "The evidence is overwhelming, but we find the defendant Not Guilty because he is oh, so pretty!" and have that stand up? Or do they simply say "Not Guilty" and we never find out why?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

This is New York State specific. When the verdict is announced the jury foreperson announces it in open court after it is shown to the presiding judge. At that point the defense Alan request to poll the individual jurors. Occasionally, there is a discrepancy.

Jury deliberations are secret prior to the verdict being announced. Once announced jurors are free to say whatever they want but cannot be compelled.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (17 replies)

load more comments (19 replies)