Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
That might happen but is very unlikely. Jury selection is done by both sides so it's very unlikely you'd get a jury united in deciding not to convict him.
However the Supreme Court ruled that jury verdicts have to be unanimous. It is very possible that the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict if 1 or more jurors refuse to convict. If this happens it would be a mistrial, and the case would be retired with a new jury. In theory this could keep happening until either a unanimous verdict is reached by a jury or a judge decides that this should not be retried as its been tried multiple times without outcome.
Another key element will be his defense which could lead to him getting a not guilty verdict. The only real defense as a mitigation would be insanity. Otherwise it seems unlikely (albeit possible) that it's the wrong man.
The most likely scenario is a jury unanimously convicts him in my opinion. However people may feel about the case, a jury has to make a decision on whether the facts show he committed a crime - it seems pretty clear there is enough evidence to make a decision and it's unlikely other factors will come in to play in a jury room.
In the US, a jury can choose to ignore the facts, and they can not be punished for it.
I actually think that's quite a nice check on judicial power
On one hand, yes. On the other hand, this has largely been used in the deep south to ensure that people who openly lynched black people evaded conviction.
Well this is the time for plebs to use their power for good!