News

I know it's in NYC, but I live in New York State and really hope I get a summons.

Jury nullification is an important logical conclusion of American jurist rules. This post will stay up.

Let's not forget, maybe, just maybe, this guy is absolutely innocent, was nowhere near the crime at the time, and had nothing to do with it.

And the cops, in their over zeal to catch someone, anyone, found a poor unlucky person who looks like the guy in the crime scene photos and handily fabricated the rest of the physical evidence. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

Seriously, a written statement admitting guilt? How likely is that? Anyway, this is what I think is happening. And I doubt the real truth will ever be known, sadly.

All the best to Luigi. Good luck to him.

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.”

Over the centuries, American juries have nullified cases related to controversial topics like fugitive slave laws, Prohibition and, in recent decades, the war on drugs.

Giggity.

“This is not a case of (Mangione) like throwing blood on this guy as he’s walking into the convention,” Bader said, referring to the scene of the shooting outside an investors’ conference in Midtown Manhattan. “If the jury finds that there’s evidence that he ended this man’s life in cold blood, I don’t see the result being an acquittal because of anger toward the health insurance system.”

Dumbass

Repost of my own comment in a different community:

I would say that jury nullification isn’t just some accident of the legal system, but the primary reason we have juries in the first place.

Judges will say that juries are meant to just decide the simple facts of the case. But what sane person would ever design a system that assigns 12 random untrained nobodies to do that task? If all that mattered was judging the facts of the case, why not have 12 legal scholars instead? Why isn’t “juror” a profession, just like being a lawyer or judge is? If we want people to just apply the letter of the law to the facts of a case, why not fill juries with professionals, each who had a legal degree, and who have sat as jurors hundreds of times? Judging evidence and reading law is a skill. And it’s one that can be educated on, trained, and practiced. Why do we have amateur juries, when professional juries would clearly do their purported job so much better? Or why not just do what some countries do, and have most or all trials decided solely by judges? What exactly is the point of a jury? Compared to everything else in the courtroom, the jurors, the ones actually deciding guilt or innocence, are a bunch of untrained amateurs. On its face, it makes no damn sense!

No, the true reason, and really the only reason, we have juries at all is so that juries can serve to judge both the accused AND the law. Juries are meant to be the final line of defense against unjust laws and prosecution. It is possible for a law itself to be criminal or corrupt. Legislative systems can easily be taken over by a tiny wealthy or powerful minority of the population, and they can end up passing laws criminalizing behaviors that the vast majority of the population don’t even consider to be crimes.

The entire purpose of having a jury is that it places the final power of guilt and innocence directly in the hands of the people. Juries are meant as a final line of defense against corrupt laws passed by a minority against the wishes of the greater majority. An unaccountable elite can pass whatever ridiculous self-serving laws they want. But if the common people simply refuse to uphold those laws in the jury box, those laws are meaningless.

THAT is the purpose of a jury. It is the only reason juries are worth the trouble. A bunch of rank amateurs will never be able to judge the facts of a case better than actual trained legal scholars with years of experience. But by empowering juries, it places the final authority of the law firmly in the hands of the people. That is the value of having a jury at all.

Jury nullification is not just some strange quirk or odd loophole in our justice system. It’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place.

Juries also have acquitted some abused women who killed or attacked their husbands, such as Francine Hughes, leading to a wider recognition of what’s known as battered woman syndrome.

“Juries recognized that before the law did,” Conrad said. “The law is slow to change. Sometimes society changes much more quickly than the law, and that is when jury nullification should come in … We don’t need to have 18th-century law governing 21st-century behavior, and the jury can say so.”

New phrase added to the American lexicon in 2025 - battered patient syndrome.

Hmm, maybe convict him, but give him no penalty and no imprisonment?

That's a thing, right?

Jury nullification doesn't really exist. It's just an attempt to label something the jury decides that you believe goes against the law. The fact is, the jury is part of the law, and the jury can decide what parts of it are relevant, are enforceable in the case, and which need special considerations. Complaining about "jury nullification" is complaining about one of the fewest democratic elements in the judicial system, a system that on its own is almost completely autocratic and as such that much more susceptible to the formation of oligarchies and nepotism from within.