• ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    155
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Key facts about Jury Trials:

    1. Jurors cannot be punished for their decison either “guilty” or “not guilty”, no matter if the decision was the “right” or “wrong” decison.

    2. A verdict of “not guilty” cannot be appealed nor overturned.

    3. A person cannot be tried for the same criminal act more than once. Famously known as the “No Double Jeopardy” clause. (although: according to the law, mistrials / hung juries don’t count as a trial for the purposes of “No Double Jeopardy”)

    Interpret these facts however you will. wink wink, nudge nudge

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        cough cough ^jury ^nullification cough

        Sorry, there must be something in the air today.

    • unmagical@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      4 days ago

      Can we crowd source ads around Manhattan and have people with bullhorns on the sidewalks around the court entrances announcing “Jury Nullification is your right!”?

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        45
        ·
        4 days ago

        Just to be clear, Jury Nullification isn’t a right, more of a natural consequence of the 2 rules:

        Jury can’t be punished for not ruling a certain way

        And

        No double jeopardy.

        You can’t outlaw jury nullification without breaking the first rule and you can’t break the first rule because it’s absolutely necessary for a fair justice system

        • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          4 days ago

          It’s not just a consequence, it’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place. Do you honestly think 12 random untrained people can judge if someone violated a law better than a traines judge holding a bench trial? Juries are always going to be inferior at applying the letter of the law than any trained judge.

          The only value of a jury is that it protects against unjust laws. The original idea was that, regardless of what laws the wealthy write, you still need to be able to convince 12 ordinary people that a crime worthy of punishment has taken place.

          Jury nullification isn’t just some quirky consequence of the jury system; it’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place. We’ve just collectively forgotten that fact.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          True, but from the perspective of a juror, it may as well be a right, and calling it a right gets the point across much more efficiently than trying to explain in detail.

        • uid0gid0@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          A judge can overrule a jury if they think the jury judged the law rather than the defendant, however.

          • cm0002@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 days ago

            Only for a guilty verdict, a non-guilty verdict can’t be overrode or appealed.

            That’s why they hate juries knowing about it so much

    • JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 days ago

      Jury nullification is one way to overturn unfair laws.

      If a bunch of juries refuse to play ball, prosecutors will stop trying the cases. They think convictions are the only way to win reelection.

      I’m an advocate for homeless people. I 100% support jury nullification.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        I mean, we’d probably want to keep murder illegal. It’s just this specific murder we don’t take issue with.

    • nutsack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      something like the casey anthony trial comes to mind though. the jury wanted to convict but needed to act objectively on evidence alone. so they all cringed and cried as they all signed off to acquit or whatever. this would be the opposite, but the idea is the same.

      • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Different.

        A “guilty” verdict that a judge deems to be lacking evidence and result in the judge giving their verdict that overrides the jury’s. It could also get appealed. So there’s no point of the “guilty” version of Jury Nullification.

        In contrast, a “not guilty” verdict cannot be overrulled by the judge, nor can it be appealed. So this version of Jury Nullification is much stronger.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    The four most meaningless words in journalism… “the NY Post reports”

  • cranakis@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    137
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Adams was quoted by the Post as saying the police were withholding the suspect’s name for now to deny him any advantage.

    “We don’t want to release that now,” the mayor said. “If you do, you are basically giving a tip to the person we are seeking and we do not want to give him an upper hand at all. Let him continue to believe he can hide behind the mask."

    Yeah yeah. I’ll believe it when you prove it Adams. Sounds like you still have Jack shit to me.

  • nutsack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    how would releasing his name vs “we know who it is” give any amount of edge to the guy? do they really think this guy is dumb enough to be complacent? im sure he’s doing 100% of his best effort to remain as lucky as possible and have the best chances of making it onto a container ship headed for cambodia or whatever.

  • malloc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    ·
    4 days ago

    Sounds like a desperate tactic to get perpetrator to make mistakes (ie, tickets bought hastily to leave country). Sudden plans to leave the country or travel domestically are often flagged by the feds for follow up. The practice was supposedly put on hold [1] but wouldn’t surprise me if it’s used in situations like this.

    In my opinion, police wouldn’t bother releasing this statement. If it was real, investigation would continue and the next statement/story would be “we have the person in custody”.

    I call bullshit.

    [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/dea-passenger-searches-halted-watchdog-finds-signs-civil-rights-violat-rcna181262

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      74
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      That’s one theory, but also, remember that Eric Adams is kind of a moron.

      One of the few explanations that makes sense to me is that the cops have identified him but aren’t saying anything so as not to tip him off, and Adams decided to make the announcement anyway, because him being the one to break the news is good for his career. And then figured with impeccable moron logic that as long as he doesn’t use the guy’s name, the guy will be none the wiser.

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Cops haven’t found shit. I saw a video of a guy putting mask on their face that when on actually make you look like that person. Apparently can buy them on Amazon. How do we know that isn’t a mask? This guy was smart. He didn’t leave behind nothing he didn’t want the cops to find. Hell the so called bottle they found. If you wacth the video or him disposing of it. He placed it in just a way that was for sure to be found.

      Also two theories on the backpack. Either he left it on purpose, or my thinking is the cops planted it to make it look like they are solving this thing.

      I think who ever this was is a professional or he planned it right and they will not catch this person. Unfortunately they will pin this on someone, and that someone will be dead.

      Even if and its a big if they catch this person, no way will they allow this man to be put on trial. Allow his defense lawyer play up that he killed that fucking CEO because someone he loved died because the fucks at United Healthcare denying their claim. And if they had gotten care would have lived.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        4 days ago

        The backpack had monopoly money in it.

        He left it.

        He’s fucking leagues beyond getting caught.

        Homie rolled up on an ebike with a gun loaded with bullets engraved with messages. Iced this fuckface, tossed a backpack full of monopoly money to throw off the trail and make a statement, and dipped.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Allow his defense lawyer play up that he killed that fucking CEO because someone he loved died

        That would not be admissible at trial.

        The purpose of a trial is to present or rebut evidence that he killed the CEO. Anything extraneous to that is not allowed.

        The exception would be if he were trying an insanity defense, which almost never succeeds.

        • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          4 days ago

          Please it will be brought up. It goes to motivate. Again rhey will not let this hero go to trial. Besides they won’t get a jury to convict him.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            4 days ago

            They don’t need to prove motive, and plenty of juries would convict.

            It won’t go to trial, but only because if he’s caught then his best bet is to take a plea bargain.

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 days ago

      So what you’re saying is everybody who’s financially capable right now should take a week off of work to go across the country or maybe even across country lines for absolutely no reason? Especially those of us living in and around the area of Manhattan?

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Spoilers for Death Note (the Anime):

      spoiler

      In Death Note, L had the police announce that they sent thousands of FBI agents into Japan to find Kira, and show it on TV when they knew Yagami Light was watching. There were no such thing as thousands of FBI agents, it was a bluff, and Yagami Light also predicted it and remained calm. This could be a similar bluff.

      (Note: This is not to compare Yagami Light to the NYC John Wick, Yamami Light has (arguably) way more unethical acts than our NYC John Wick.)

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    You mean habitual liar Eric Adams? As quoted by the abominable tabloid the New York Compost?

    Yeah, I’m gonna hold out for confirmation from someone not perpetually full of shit…

  • NastyNative@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    We have too many murders to investigate! Just to get caught up in 1 murder seems like a waste of money and time. It’s time to move on too bad so sad!

    • cerement@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 days ago

      one video talking about Paul Watson: “wanted for the crime of being a fucking legend”

  • AmidFuror@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    No one pointing out that although this is Reuters, their source in the NY Post.

    • VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 days ago

      I mean, yeah. I doubt they’d outright lie about Adams making that statement, but neither that rag, nor the person they’re quoting, are overly trustworthy.