3 ms·

The indictment is in the Eastern District of Virginia. This court is a favourite of the DoJ, since IIRC it has never (or maybe only very rarely, I can't remembe

by cyphar 7y ago

The indictment is in the Eastern District of Virginia. This court is a favourite of the DoJ, since IIRC it has never (or maybe only very rarely, I can't remember where I read this) ruled in favour of the defendant in an Espionage Act case. The idea Assange will have a fair trial is a joke -- though I do hope he does.

joshuamorton 7y ago
This is a bit of a weird statement. Criminal courts don't "rule". Judges make rulings (which, if my understanding is correct, are binding and set precedent). Assange will be put in front of a jury. The jury will make a determination of guilt or lack thereof. But such a finding isn't a ruling in the legal sense. It's not precedent setting. It's that a prosecutor managed to convince a group of 12 randomish people that Assange really did whatever bad thing they claim he did, and Assange's own council wasn't able to convince them otherwise.
- tracker1 7y ago
  Judges can and often do, set expectations on scope and consideration the jury should take into consideration. That doesn't mean that jury nullification cannot happen, however no judge will generally let any jury know that they're even allowed to do that.
  - empath75 7y ago
    acquittal is not nullification.
    - tracker1 7y ago
      When someone technically violated the law, but the jury doesn't convict is.
      - 8note 7y ago
        when somebody technically violated the law, but there's reasonable doubt, it's not nullification
        tracker1 7y ago
        I'm not talking about when there is doubt... I'm literally talking about jury nullification. Why do you keep insisting on setting it up as though I'm saying something else?
        cyphar 7y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
    - cyphar 7y ago
      Jury nullification is a specific term[1] referring to when a jury knows that a particular defendant is guilty of a crime but they decide to find them not guilty because they believe the law to be unjust. There are many examples of this occurring in history, and this exists as a unwritten legal concept as a logical consequence of two explicit legal concepts: * Juries cannot be punished or reprimanded for coming to the "wrong decision". * A defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried again in front of a jury because of the defense of double jeopardy. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
- cyphar 7y ago
  There are many other clear examples of courts which have a statistical bias towards certain decisions. A very good example is that of Texas, where the vast majority (about 75%) of patent lawsuits are filed because they very often rule in favour of the plaintiff. This is why patent trolls often file suits in Texas. The reason for that bias might be more complicated (the view of the local community which will be selected for a jury might be influenced through various means -- but that's a secondary question to the primary point that there is a statistical bias regardless of the reason for it).

by cyphar 7y ago

joshuamorton 7y ago

This is a bit of a weird statement. Criminal courts don't "rule". Judges make rulings (which, if my understanding is correct, are binding and set precedent). Assange will be put in front of a jury. The jury will make a determination of guilt or lack thereof. But such a finding isn't a ruling in the legal sense. It's not precedent setting. It's that a prosecutor managed to convince a group of 12 randomish people that Assange really did whatever bad thing they claim he did, and Assange's own council wasn't able to convince them otherwise.

tracker1 7y ago
Judges can and often do, set expectations on scope and consideration the jury should take into consideration. That doesn't mean that jury nullification cannot happen, however no judge will generally let any jury know that they're even allowed to do that.
- empath75 7y ago
  acquittal is not nullification.
  - tracker1 7y ago
    When someone technically violated the law, but the jury doesn't convict is.
    - 8note 7y ago
      when somebody technically violated the law, but there's reasonable doubt, it's not nullification
      - tracker1 7y ago
        I'm not talking about when there is doubt... I'm literally talking about jury nullification. Why do you keep insisting on setting it up as though I'm saying something else?
      - cyphar 7y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
  - cyphar 7y ago
    Jury nullification is a specific term[1] referring to when a jury knows that a particular defendant is guilty of a crime but they decide to find them not guilty because they believe the law to be unjust. There are many examples of this occurring in history, and this exists as a unwritten legal concept as a logical consequence of two explicit legal concepts: * Juries cannot be punished or reprimanded for coming to the "wrong decision". * A defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried again in front of a jury because of the defense of double jeopardy. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
cyphar 7y ago
There are many other clear examples of courts which have a statistical bias towards certain decisions. A very good example is that of Texas, where the vast majority (about 75%) of patent lawsuits are filed because they very often rule in favour of the plaintiff. This is why patent trolls often file suits in Texas. The reason for that bias might be more complicated (the view of the local community which will be selected for a jury might be influenced through various means -- but that's a secondary question to the primary point that there is a statistical bias regardless of the reason for it).