just realized reading this thread that if we can reach critical mass on jury nullification we can break the justice system completely
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2020
0 points (NaN% liked)
main
15711 readers
9 users here now
THE MAIN RULE: ALL TEXT POSTS MUST CONTAIN "MAIN" OR BE ENTIRELY IMAGES (INLINE OR EMOJI)
(Temporary moratorium on main rule to encourage more posting on main. We reserve the right to arbitrarily enforce it whenever we wish and the right to strike this line and enforce mainposting with zero notification to the users because its funny)
A hexbear.net commainity. Main sure to subscribe to other communities as well. Your feed will become the Lion's Main!
Top Image of the Month will remain the Banner for a Month
Good comrades mainly sort posts by hot and comments by new!
State-by-state guide on maintaining firearm ownership
Domain guide on mutual aid and foodbank resources
Tips for looking at financials of non-profits (How to donate amainly)
Community-sourced megapost on the main media sources to radicalize libs and chuds with
Main Source for Feminism for Babies
Maintaining OpSec / Data Spring Cleaning guide
Remain up to date on what time is it in Moscow
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Protip: "Probably guilty" means not guilty.
In addition to what @hauntingspectre already said, the way to go about it is to just continuously assert that you are not convinced that the guy is guilty. No matter how the rest of the jury tries to convince you, just keep asserting that you have a feeling that the defendant is innocent. Either they go along with you and the defendant goes free or the jury hangs.
I tried to get on a jury but I'm 90% sure being trans was why I got kicked off. I was far from dead set on nullification because it was a murder trial but the facts as described initially were that the guy was part of a group of people and they were trying to hold him personally responsible for the robbery turning into a murder. it was either being trans or some other little thing I said during their "do you know what beyond a reasonable doubt means" bullshit. which was also kinda annoying because they keeepppppt asking about it and every time I was like "yo I've taken a pile of classes on these concepts I know what the fuck it is"
but at least I made the prosecutor kick off 1/3 of the white people in the pool lol
The beautiful thing about jury nullification is you don’t need to convince anyone. Just vote not guilty and refuse to change it, and stick to the most plausible deniability.
Just absolutely refuse to convict, let it go to mistrial if it must.
I've hung a jury. It was great. The only downside is the juror selection questionnaire you fill out asks if you've ever been on a hung jury. This potentially ruins future chances to legally nullify, although it ruins the chances of all the chuds on your jury ever getting picked again too!!!!
You will be amazed how fucking stupid a "jury of your peers" are. In our case the judge specifically told the jury to ignore drug possession when it comes to deciding the case (the drug possession was not supposed to be mentioned but someone slipped up and it was technically allowed). The second we sit down for deliberations someone said "I thought they were innocent but then they brought up the drugs" several people agreed and my brain turned to mush.
edit: Oh and i forgot about the fucking lib kid who complained about the lack of any POC on the jury yet still voted the black defendant guilty even after I called him on it.
People on jury duty weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.
I got out once when I was 19, now I'm 100% committing to it if I get called again.
You're not. If you advance jury nullification ideas within the jury room, you'll be replaced by an alternate (if available, obviously the size of the trial will impact that). Now, there might be different laws in different states on the matter, but the ones I'm familiar with allow removal.
Best thing to do is vote not guilty (assuming the case and charge allow it), and just say you're not convinced past a reasonable doubt.
Yeah, just hang the jury
hang the judge if you can get a rope around his neck
:pog-fish:
You can't mention that you know about it so they pick you, obviously.
I guess you can also lie your ass off to get in, but if you go hard on that the defense is likely to remove you from consideration instead.
They typically won't ask if you support or have heard of jury nullification during voir dire. They will leave that to the "is there any reason you feel you can't bring a verdict in accordance with the law and judge's instructions?" question.
Jury nullification isn't itself illegal, so you can honestly answer "No".
They asked when I went. They didn't use the words "jury nullification" but they asked if anyone in the room would be unwilling to convict if they were convinced someone violated a law that they didn't agree should be a law (giving a stupid example of "making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich").
The more trivial a thing you build an example out of the more demonic it actually is to think about.
Yea they avoid mentioning it. My point was that you can't seem as anything but a blank slate doofus to get accepted into a jury.
Completely correct.
Holy shit can you actually be removed if you bring up things the prosecution doesn't like?
Both the prosecution and the defense. They have to agree on all the jurors afaik.
Things the judge doesn't like, yes. Basically while you have a right to nullify a jury, you don't have the right to SAY you're nullifying the jury.
So how can jury nullification even take place?
I mean, historically used, often everyone agreed "killing that gamer-word was cool and good". That's why there were lots of Federal civil rights trials after local juries refused to convict.
Now, it's more likely that you'll hang a jury rather than get 12 to agree with you, since nullification was cracked down on after all that.
So basically everyone would just have to refuse to convict without it being coordinated?
No, if it's coordinated then no one has to worry about being dimed out to the judge :) but, it's very risky to bring it up openly, so someone has to do it, and it can't be you, since you know you'll vote not guilty. Prisoners dilemma type problem.
ah so just ignore all the old whites and hope everyone else isn't on some uncle tom shit