3 ms·
If the law says A | B, and someone is convicted of A & B, is it not plainly obvious that the jury would have convicted of A | B as well, since it is a strictly
by jevinskie 11y ago
If the law says A | B, and someone is convicted of A & B, is it not plainly obvious that the jury would have convicted of A | B as well, since it is a strictly "weaker" predicate?
- AnthonyMouse 11y agoThe argument is from the other side. The idea is that the prosecutor clearly didn't prove A & B, so the jury didn't follow the judge's instructions. If the judge had told the jury A | B then the jury's verdict would have been more reasonable, which hurts the defendant's argument that it was unreasonable.