For anyone genuinely considering jury nullification, it’s also probably not a good idea to bring it up before deliberation. Lawyers typically try to get jurors dismissed when they’re aware that it’s actually an option.
You also kinda need to convince your fellow jurors to vote “non-guilty”. But do so discreetly.
Hung jury is a mistrial. Mistrial means the prosecution can try again. (Double Jeopardy doesn’t apply to mistrials) If you were the only one who voted not-guilty, chances are, the next jury will vote unanimously guilty.
Its very easy to get kicked off jury before deliberations, so what you wanna do is: After deliberations begin, try to covertly nudge your fellow jurors. For example, if the suspect did not say anything that’s a confession, say “Are y’all sure this is the guy, I feel like he’s been set up.” Make excuses on why he might not be the perpetrator.
Only when you are sure that you or only like 2 or 3 of you are saying “not-guilty” then try to say things like: “But should we really convict this guy when the CEO that died was a horrible person?” Just try not to say “jury nullification”, keep making excuses on why you are voting “not-guilty”.
Interestingly, just due to the inclination of the executive branch to “get a conviction” fast, at any cost, it’s actually pretty likely that is in fact “the wrong guy”. The investigators will be under pressure to find someone, and will use available technology in an absolutely, horrendously wrong way just to get a “result” and use that as a justification to accuse random unlucky people. Of course, anyone with deeper knowledge of involved technology would know that, but they’re not working for the ill educated LE operators.
All something to consider when potentially ruining someone’s life because some dumb fuckers got an innocent joe as the wrong person because they deformed under pressure and couldn’t successfully do their job. Happens way too often
They essentially conducted their own investigations, in real life someone in the jury would’ve snitched to the judge and the whole trial would get rules as a mistial due to jurors conducting their own investigations. Then new jury gets convened and they wouldn’t have that solo “non guilty” juror. The kid on trial would’ve been executed, sadly.
You were going on about carefully convincing other people to vote not guilty and all I could think about was the process of persuasion that slowly flipped the jury in that movie.
Everyone needed something different for them to consider, then actually believe, that the defendant might be innocent.
I’ll admit, you had me in the first half.
For anyone genuinely considering jury nullification, it’s also probably not a good idea to bring it up before deliberation. Lawyers typically try to get jurors dismissed when they’re aware that it’s actually an option.
You also kinda need to convince your fellow jurors to vote “non-guilty”. But do so discreetly.
Hung jury is a mistrial. Mistrial means the prosecution can try again. (Double Jeopardy doesn’t apply to mistrials) If you were the only one who voted not-guilty, chances are, the next jury will vote unanimously guilty.
Its very easy to get kicked off jury before deliberations, so what you wanna do is: After deliberations begin, try to covertly nudge your fellow jurors. For example, if the suspect did not say anything that’s a confession, say “Are y’all sure this is the guy, I feel like he’s been set up.” Make excuses on why he might not be the perpetrator.
Only when you are sure that you or only like 2 or 3 of you are saying “not-guilty” then try to say things like: “But should we really convict this guy when the CEO that died was a horrible person?” Just try not to say “jury nullification”, keep making excuses on why you are voting “not-guilty”.
Interestingly, just due to the inclination of the executive branch to “get a conviction” fast, at any cost, it’s actually pretty likely that is in fact “the wrong guy”. The investigators will be under pressure to find someone, and will use available technology in an absolutely, horrendously wrong way just to get a “result” and use that as a justification to accuse random unlucky people. Of course, anyone with deeper knowledge of involved technology would know that, but they’re not working for the ill educated LE operators.
All something to consider when potentially ruining someone’s life because some dumb fuckers got an innocent joe as the wrong person because they deformed under pressure and couldn’t successfully do their job. Happens way too often
Everyone reading this, watch the movie 12 Angry Men and take copious notes.
Lol that movie is not legal advice.
They essentially conducted their own investigations, in real life someone in the jury would’ve snitched to the judge and the whole trial would get rules as a mistial due to jurors conducting their own investigations. Then new jury gets convened and they wouldn’t have that solo “non guilty” juror. The kid on trial would’ve been executed, sadly.
Edit: Great movie tho
Not what I meant.
You were going on about carefully convincing other people to vote not guilty and all I could think about was the process of persuasion that slowly flipped the jury in that movie.
Everyone needed something different for them to consider, then actually believe, that the defendant might be innocent.
I did try to be specific: on that day.