POLITICAL pictures - Funny (unlikely), Sad (more likely) Infuriating (most likely)

[edporch]

Jury nullification
View attachment 338583

I remember reading several years ago that early juries in this country were also told that in addition to judging the guilt or innocence of the defendant, they also had to power to judge the rightness or wrongness of the law itself.
Funny how juries don't seem to be informed they have the right to judge the law anymore.

 

[2A_Tom]

I was on a jury, where the judge instructed us not to judge the law, but go strictly by his interpretation.

Had the defendant not been a degenerate dirt bag, I would have been the holdout juror that caused it to be hung.

To this day I believe the search warrant was flawed, but as I said he was a degenerate, dirt bag, drug dealer.

 

[snapping turtle]

To this day I believe the search warrant was flawed, but as I said he was a degenerate, dirt bag, drug dealer.

Degenerate dirt bag drug dealers they came after first and since I was not a degenerate dirt bag drug dealer I did nothing.

 

[2A_Tom]

His son also attempted murder of the key witness (handcuffed him in a barn and set it on fire) and threatened to kill the jurors if his dad was convicted.

We did not find this out until after the trial.

Degenerates will degenerate!

 

[Magyars]

 

[BeDome]

I was on a jury, where the judge instructed us not to judge the law, but go strictly by his interpretation.

Had the defendant not been a degenerate dirt bag, I would have been the holdout juror that caused it to be hung.

To this day I believe the search warrant was flawed, but as I said he was a degenerate, dirt bag, drug dealer.

This is exactly why most lefty, dirtbag, degenerate lawyers try to exclude criminal history of the specific dirtbag repeat criminal from a court proceeding.

Previous history should never matter, right?
You let him go today and he will change his life and never go back to doing exactly what he is on trial for, again. Right?

Problems with sticky points in the perfect execution of the law enforcers in each and every step of the process is something we just have to swallow sometimes.
We have to let some bad guys go, but not all of them!

There are many ways to taint a jury of ones peers, but not allowing all the facts to be considered on top of using an over simplified interpretation of meer portions of the laws in question can lead to a spoiling of the entire system.

Actually an argument could made that such a break down has already happened.

 

[mikek]

 

[mikek]

 

[mikek]

 

[actaeon277]

Previous history should never matter, right?
You let him go today and he will change his life and not go back to doing exactly what he is on trial for. Right?

Or, just because you robbed a bank years ago, doesn't mean that you were the one that robbed it yesterday.

 

[edporch]

Or, just because you robbed a bank years ago, doesn't mean that you were the one that robbed it yesterday.

Many years ago at 18, as a witness to a violent crime I testified in court.
Afterward, I was talking to the Prosecutor about how disgusted I was that the court was kissing up to the POS perp with a history of violence who anybody KNOWS is guilty.

HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR to me that everybody has the right to a fair unbiased trial and we can't railroad people just because we hate them.
I never forgot that.

 

[rbhargan]

A few decades ago, on one of many trips to Colonial Williamsburg, one of the tour guides was explaining that, back in the day, it was considered a plus if a juror knew the defendant. That way they could judge the moral quality of the person on trial. Obviously, that can go either way, but it seems that we have gone way too far in the "prior actions have no bearing on the present case" argument.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[actaeon277]

Many years ago at 18, as a witness to a violent crime I testified in court.
Afterward, I was talking to the Prosecutor about how disgusted I was that the court was kissing up to the POS perp with a history of violence who anybody KNOWS is guilty.

HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR to me that everybody has the right to a fair unbiased trial and we can't railroad people just because we hate them.
I never forgot that.

There's that, and the fact that if you convict someone, just because they've done it before.. then you may be letting the actual perpetrator go.
After all, if someone's already been convicted.. there's no reason to look anymore

 

[BeDome]

There's that, and the fact that if you convict someone, just because they've done it before.. then you may be letting the actual perpetrator go.
After all, if someone's already been convicted.. there's no reason to look anymore

Hence the expression, "Triple Edged Sword."

 

[actaeon277]

Hence the expression, "Triple Edged Sword."

huh?

 

[mikek]

 

[mikek]

 

[04FXSTS]

Many years ago at 18, as a witness to a violent crime I testified in court.
Afterward, I was talking to the Prosecutor about how disgusted I was that the court was kissing up to the POS perp with a history of violence who anybody KNOWS is guilty.

HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR to me that everybody has the right to a fair unbiased trial and we can't railroad people just because we hate them.
I never forgot that.

Around 15 or so years ago I was on a jury for a shooting, two young black guys involved with one just wounded. Jury was mixed with young and old, black and white jurors. In jury room after discussing the evidence presented during the trial for about 15 minutes one of the jurors spoke up. Happened to be a black lady who said "There is no doubt in my mind the defendent shot the other guy but the state did not prove it." Everyone agreed with her and the first vote was unanimous "not guilty."
After the trial was over I looked up each of those involved and they were both scumbags. The defense had made the defendant look like a nice guy, wrong. Jim.

 

[Magyars]