3 ms·

Your view is irrelevant unless you can change the law.

by Veen 8y ago

roywiggins 8y ago
Not just the law, the US Constitution.
paulcole 8y ago
Not necessarily if they can get on the jury and use jury nullification. Or make this concept more well known to people who may be on the jury.
- Veen 8y ago
  Jury nullification is hard to pull off though. I'm not sure Assange would have the support he'd need to guarantee a jury finding in his favor (assuming he's actually guilty of what he's accused of).
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    paulcole wasn't talking about Assange being convicted, but rather those whom Assange exposed.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  ...then get the trial declared a mistrial, and possibly get held in contempt by the judge for violating their duty as a juror.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  It's hard to use jury nullification to convict; it's usually used only to acquit. First, the judge won't usually allow charges that are outside the bounds of the law to even be presented to the jury. Second, even if the jury does convict of something outside the bounds of the law, it will almost certainly be overturned on appeal. You don't want a jury deciding to convict people for things that the law doesn't say is illegal. You really don't. That's way too close to mob rule, and that often doesn't get applied only to the people that you think it should be applied to. You don't want a jury deciding that what you did is treason, even though the law doesn't say that it is.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > First, the judge won't usually allow charges that are outside the bounds of the law to even be presented to the jury. Second, even if the jury does convict of something outside the bounds of the law, it will almost certainly be overturned on appeal. And in between, if the charges are within the law but the judge feels a reasonable jury could not convict on them, he can (and presumably will) dismiss the charges either before or after the jury verdict; judges cannot toss a jury acquittal (or convict on their own without a jury verdict), but they can and do do the reverse.
- isoskeles 8y ago
  Wouldn't jury nullification be restricted to finding someone not guilty because some law is invalid. This would be the opposite, where we find someone "guilty" of "treason" because the jury decided treason is actually a broader crime that covers acts like lying about war crimes. Doesn't sound like jury "nullification" to me.

Your view is irrelevant unless you can change the law.

by Veen 8y ago

Your view is irrelevant unless you can change the law.

roywiggins 8y ago

Not just the law, the US Constitution.

paulcole 8y ago

Not necessarily if they can get on the jury and use jury nullification. Or make this concept more well known to people who may be on the jury.

Veen 8y ago
Jury nullification is hard to pull off though. I'm not sure Assange would have the support he'd need to guarantee a jury finding in his favor (assuming he's actually guilty of what he's accused of).
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  paulcole wasn't talking about Assange being convicted, but rather those whom Assange exposed.
vonmoltke 8y ago
...then get the trial declared a mistrial, and possibly get held in contempt by the judge for violating their duty as a juror.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
It's hard to use jury nullification to convict; it's usually used only to acquit. First, the judge won't usually allow charges that are outside the bounds of the law to even be presented to the jury. Second, even if the jury does convict of something outside the bounds of the law, it will almost certainly be overturned on appeal. You don't want a jury deciding to convict people for things that the law doesn't say is illegal. You really don't. That's way too close to mob rule, and that often doesn't get applied only to the people that you think it should be applied to. You don't want a jury deciding that what you did is treason, even though the law doesn't say that it is.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > First, the judge won't usually allow charges that are outside the bounds of the law to even be presented to the jury. Second, even if the jury does convict of something outside the bounds of the law, it will almost certainly be overturned on appeal. And in between, if the charges are within the law but the judge feels a reasonable jury could not convict on them, he can (and presumably will) dismiss the charges either before or after the jury verdict; judges cannot toss a jury acquittal (or convict on their own without a jury verdict), but they can and do do the reverse.
isoskeles 8y ago
Wouldn't jury nullification be restricted to finding someone not guilty because some law is invalid. This would be the opposite, where we find someone "guilty" of "treason" because the jury decided treason is actually a broader crime that covers acts like lying about war crimes. Doesn't sound like jury "nullification" to me.