Access to this page has been denied
www.houstonchronicle.com
px-captcha

Too many of the potential jurors said that even if the defendant, Elisa Meadows, was guilty, they were unwilling to issue the $500 fine a city attorney was seeking, said Ren Rideauxx, Meadows’ attorney.

    • ZaktorEnglish
      12·
      10 months ago

      To get there they’d have to risk being charged with perjury since it sounds like they were directly asking that question.

    • jballs@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      9·
      10 months ago

      This actually is a great example of jury nullification. From https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/jury-nullification-faq/what-is-jury-nullification.html talking about a different case:

      Of 27 potential jurors questioned during voir dire, only five said they would vote to convict a person of possession of such a small amount of marijuana. Skeptical that it would even be possible to seat a jury, the judge in the case called a recess during which time the lawyers worked out a deal known as an “Alford plea” in which the defendant didn’t admit guilt.

      When these kinds of rejections of enforcement of laws stack up over time, the laws become unenforceable. We’ve seen this rejection of the Fugitive Slave Laws and alcohol prohibition, for example, undermine such laws’ enforcement. Eventually, it is no longer worth the time or hassle or embarrassment for government officials to try to enforce these laws. They may be further nullified in a sense either remaining on the books but not being enforced or being repealed altogether.

      So when these potential jurors said they wouldn’t fine someone for feeding the homeless, it’s one brick in the wall. Get enough bricks and all of a sudden the law is unenforceable.

    • Seraph@kbin.social
      5·
      10 months ago

      I always wonder what they’ll do if I start chatting about it with other people during the selection process.

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        141·
        10 months ago

        From what I understand it depends on the jurisdiction. Some places nothing happens, other places they’ll declare a mistrial and select from a new jury pool. Yet others they’ll slap you with a charge of contempt of court or possibly jury tampering.

        • Hupf@feddit.de
          81·
          10 months ago

          It is contempt of a court of law to

          checks notes

          broaden the involved parties’ knowledge of the law.

          • orclev@lemmy.world
            1·
            10 months ago

            Ultimately it comes down to a subtle but important disagreement about what exactly the role of a juror is. For supporters of jury nullification, a juror determines if someone is guilty or innocent. For opponents of jury nullification a juror determines if someone broke the letter of the law or not. Those that think a juror only decides if a law was broken or not feel it’s the judges duty to determine guilt or innocence based on the juries findings. The contempt of court charge is for essentially stepping out of your lane and taking power from the judge.

            Personally I find it a weak argument, it has always I feel been the intent that jurors judge guilt or innocence. Specifically they decide if not just the letter but the spirit of the law has been violated, or in the case of an unjust law if no guilt is possible.