3 ms·

"And, essentially, the most important fact to the government and this is the thing we have a point of contention on, is that they do not want the jury to be abl

"And, essentially, the most important fact to the government and this is the thing we have a point of contention on, is that they do not want the jury to be able to consider the motivations. Why I did what I did. Was it better for the United States? Did it benefit us or did it cause harm? They don't want the jury to consider that at all. They want the jury strictly to consider whether these actions were lawful or unlawful, not whether they were right or wrong. And I'm sorry, but that defeats the purpose of a jury trial," Snowden said.

amalcon 7y ago
Snowden is not necessarily right about that. The purpose of a jury trial is to establish facts in a minimally biased manner[1]. This is why summary judgement[2] exists: to streamline the proceeding where the disagreement is in the law, not in the facts. The one thing that clouds this a bit is that the US government cannot constitutionally rule that someone has committed a crime without going through a jury trial. This means that there can never be summary judgement against a criminal defendant (it's mostly a civil litigation thing). Some interpret this as an attempt to explicitly create room for jury nullification. Others interpret this as an attempt to make sure that we never short-circuit the fact finding process in the name of expediency. In practice, it has both of these effects, but there's some debate as to which one is the theoretical grounding. [1]- At least to the extent that humans can ever either establish a fact or reduce bias [2]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment
- miles 7y ago
  > The purpose of a jury trial is to establish facts in a minimally biased manner Jury nullification in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_Unit... "In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify. However, in Dougherty the then-chief judge David L. Bazelon authored a dissenting in part opinion, arguing that the jury should be instructed about their power to render the verdict according to their conscience if the law was unjust. He wrote that refusal to allow the jury to be instructed constitutes a 'deliberate lack of candor'. It has been argued that the denial of jury nullification requests negates much of the point of self-representation."
- behringer 7y ago
  Does it need to have a theoretical grounding, or what I'd presume you mean is a historical grounding? What about what's just and rightous? Snowden is an American hero. What he did has clearly benefited our society. If that's a criminal offense, I would be ashamed at our justice system.

amalcon 7y ago

Snowden is not necessarily right about that. The purpose of a jury trial is to establish facts in a minimally biased manner[1]. This is why summary judgement[2] exists: to streamline the proceeding where the disagreement is in the law, not in the facts. The one thing that clouds this a bit is that the US government cannot constitutionally rule that someone has committed a crime without going through a jury trial. This means that there can never be summary judgement against a criminal defendant (it's mostly a civil litigation thing). Some interpret this as an attempt to explicitly create room for jury nullification. Others interpret this as an attempt to make sure that we never short-circuit the fact finding process in the name of expediency. In practice, it has both of these effects, but there's some debate as to which one is the theoretical grounding. [1]- At least to the extent that humans can ever either establish a fact or reduce bias [2]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment

miles 7y ago
> The purpose of a jury trial is to establish facts in a minimally biased manner Jury nullification in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_Unit... "In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify. However, in Dougherty the then-chief judge David L. Bazelon authored a dissenting in part opinion, arguing that the jury should be instructed about their power to render the verdict according to their conscience if the law was unjust. He wrote that refusal to allow the jury to be instructed constitutes a 'deliberate lack of candor'. It has been argued that the denial of jury nullification requests negates much of the point of self-representation."
behringer 7y ago
Does it need to have a theoretical grounding, or what I'd presume you mean is a historical grounding? What about what's just and rightous? Snowden is an American hero. What he did has clearly benefited our society. If that's a criminal offense, I would be ashamed at our justice system.