3 ms·
On the flip side of this, which you don't hear about very often, during my eight years locked up I saw a decent number of jury trials where the jury aquitted a
by kingcharles 5y ago
On the flip side of this, which you don't hear about very often, during my eight years locked up I saw a decent number of jury trials where the jury aquitted a clearly very, very guilty defendant.
So, I would always go with a jury trial even if you are horribly guilty as you might as well just roll the dice on the jury verdict.
One example: A guy was thrown down onto the grass in front of his house by the cops during a drug arrest. When they picked him up a gun was lying on the grass under him. He told me it fell out of the waistband of his pants. At trial his lawyer argued that the gun was already randomly lying on the ground when the police threw him down. The jury acquitted him of the gun possession charge.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago"At trial his lawyer argued that the gun was already randomly lying on the ground when the police threw him down. The jury acquitted him" Blackstone's ratio is the commonly accepted benchmark: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" It's job of the prosecution to make sure their proof is "beyond reasonable doubt", which is obviously in the eye of the beholder.