3 ms·
> Let's assume a court convicted someone of murder within this zone. Let's also assume the evidence was overwhelming and the act was premeditated because the mu
by eganist 6y ago
> Let's assume a court convicted someone of murder within this zone. Let's also assume the evidence was overwhelming and the act was premeditated because the murderer had knowledge of the Sixth Amendment and this loophole. The case makes it's way to the Supreme Court. But because of the bizarre nature of the loophole SCOTUS simply chooses not to hear appeal and lets the conviction stand. This is how the law could be enforced while technically violating the Sixth Amendment.
How would a conviction take place without a jury? Even in the Belderrain case in the Montana section of the park, a jury was never formed; there was only an initial ruling that a trial could move forward despite the risk of partiality, but the case was settled with a plea agreement where the defendant waived any right to pursuing the Zone of Death legal challenge.
(can an attorney fact-check me here, by the way? I'm definitely not one)
- tom_mellior 6y ago> How would a conviction take place without a jury? I believe the parent's point was that it could take place with a jury from anywhere else, thereby violating the letter of the 6th amendment, but without this having an effect: The convicted person would have to appeal the conviction, but no higher court would decide to hear the appeal. (I'm not a lawyer either, I'm just writing down my understanding of what the parent said.)