2 ms·
worth pointing out because i don't know if this is also the case in other countries: if the jurors think the law is dumb, they can return a verdict of not guilt
by leetcrew 8y ago
worth pointing out because i don't know if this is also the case in other countries: if the jurors think the law is dumb, they can return a verdict of not guilty even if there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
- KallDrexx 8y agoI'm pretty sure there is leeway in the appeals process for handling this case if it's absolutely obvious the Jury didn't follow the law.
- IanPBann 8y agoYou can appeal against a conviction, but unless new evidence comes to light, a non-guilty verdict closes the case. At least that's my understanding.
- leephillips 8y agoThe non-guilty verdict is final, even in the face of new evidence: “[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” (Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). Sometimes the government gets around this by inventing a new “offence” for the same crime, often at a different political level; for example, you may be acquitted of murder at the state level, but be charged with a “hate crime” at the federal level for the same act.
- leetcrew 8y agothis isn't the jury "not following the law". it's called "jury nullification" and it has been a feature of common law for hundreds of years.