4 ms·

Jury nullification ain't sounding so bad anymore, is it?

dredmorbius 2mo ago
This isn't jury nullification which occurs during a criminal trial, and for which US Constitutional double-jeopardy protections mean that no further trial for the same offence may be brought. This is a grand jury, which has refused to bring an indictment. There is no double-jeopardy protection here. The prosecutor has several options: - Bring the case directly to a judge. - File charges with a new grand jury. (Grand juries typically sit for a period of time.) In this case, however, charges have been dismissed. There are several variants here, one is "dismissed with prejudice", which means that those specific charges cannot be applied again. TFA doesn't note this (or indeed much else of substance in this case), so the presumption is that charges are dismissed without prejudice. What is notable here is that grand juries almost always vote to indict. This isn't a verdict of "guilty", but rather, a finding of sufficient cause to bring trial. As the saying goes, "a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich",[1] that is, overwhelmingly (apparently 95%+ of the time) a prosecutor easily convinces a grand jury to file charges. Given that grand jury proceedings are usually secret (there are exceptions), and we have no further insight as to what the basis of this decision was, there's not much inference which can be made, though I'd lean more strongly to weak evidence than any specific anti-Flock backlash, much as I'd prefer to believe the latter.[3][4] ________________________________ Notes: 1. Sol Wachtler: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Wachtler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Wachtler> 2. On grand juries, generally: <https://legalknowledgebase.com/what-does-it-mean-when-a-grand-jury-declines-to-indict https://legalknowledgebase.com/what-does-it-mean-when-a-gran...> 3. On dismissal of charges: <https://andrewalpert.com/blog/what-does-dismissed-with-prejudice-mean/ https://andrewalpert.com/blog/what-does-dismissed-with-preju...>
- jobs_throwaway 2mo ago
  The common refrain is "you can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich". The standards required to indict are quite low. The fact that they failed to get an indictment here must mean they had ~nothing.
  - dredmorbius 2mo ago
    Quoted, and sourced, in the comment you're replying to. Yes, I'm aware.
    - jobs_throwaway 2mo ago
      Heh, my bad
  - oceansky 2mo ago
    Judges have a lot of freedom to decide sentences. They might get one willing to throw the book on him. The risk is still there.
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - dghlsakjg 2mo ago
      Judges can’t throw the book at someone who wasn’t indicted.
      - dredmorbius 2mo ago
        Depending on the jurisdiction and court procedural rules, there may be other routes to an indictment. I'm no expert on Ohio law however, so I don't know what specifically applies here.
    - jobs_throwaway 2mo ago
      How is a judge going to do that when this man wasn't even indicted?
- KPGv2 2mo ago
  > There are several variants here, one is "dismissed with prejudice", which means that those specific charges cannot be applied again. TFA doesn't note this (or indeed much else of substance in this case), so the presumption is that charges are dismissed without prejudice. Grand juries can't dismiss with prejudice, FWIW. That's a role for judges, but a judge wouldn't have seen the case at this stage to issue such a dismissal. "Charges were dismissed" in the article is likely reference to the actions of the grand jury. It's possibly an inartful way of saying "the charges were dropped by the prosecution."
  - dredmorbius 2mo ago
    That's the part of my comment I was least comfortable with, particularly with regards to local / state jurisdictions. A judge, if involved, might request such a dismissal based on the Grand Jury's decision. Or perhaps not. My point was to clarify (I hoped) the distinction between double jeopardy and jury nullification with Grand Jury dismissal, which ... seems to be a frequently-iterated confusion in comments. What this isn't is jury nullification, whatever other win it represents for the anti-Flock crowd.
    - KPGv2 1mo ago
      Yeah you did good. I'm not the best at sounding hinged in responses online.
- harimau777 2mo ago
  Would this still be jury nullification in a social/political sense? That is to say: since it's well known that getting a indictment is very easy, this seems that, like jury nullification, this represents society effectively saying that they don't recognize the validity of a law. Of course like we said, we can't know for sure. Maybe the prosecutor messed up jury selection or failed to present compelling evidence.
  - dredmorbius 2mo ago
    If words have meanings, no. Jury Nullification arises out of double-jeopardy protections specifically, which requires a trial and not-guilty verdict. This is a failure-to-indict only. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification>
  - superxpro12 2mo ago
    Yes
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2mo ago
  If what the rest of the thread is saying is true (failed indictments being rare and harmful for the career of the prosecutor), the possibility of bringing the case up again seems relatively unlikely, making this de facto jury nullification.
consensus1 2mo ago
Never did
- giraffe_lady 2mo ago
  You ever hear of the scottsboro boys? Emmett Till's murderers were also acquitted via jury nullification, it was common for lynchings in the jim crow era. It's a tool.
  - stronglikedan 2mo ago
    Lots of good tools can be used for malicious purposes, but it doesn't make them bad tools.

This isn't jury nullification which occurs during a criminal trial, and for which US Constitutional double-jeopardy protections mean that no further trial for the same offence may be brought. This is a grand jury, which has refused to bring an indictment. There is no double-jeopardy protection here. The prosecutor has several options: - Bring the case directly to a judge. - File charges with a new grand jury. (Grand juries typically sit for a period of time.) In this case, however, charges have been dismissed. There are several variants here, one is "dismissed with prejudice", which means that those specific charges cannot be applied again. TFA doesn't note this (or indeed much else of substance in this case), so the presumption is that charges are dismissed without prejudice. What is notable here is that grand juries almost always vote to indict. This isn't a verdict of "guilty", but rather, a finding of sufficient cause to bring trial. As the saying goes, "a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich",[1] that is, overwhelmingly (apparently 95%+ of the time) a prosecutor easily convinces a grand jury to file charges. Given that grand jury proceedings are usually secret (there are exceptions), and we have no further insight as to what the basis of this decision was, there's not much inference which can be made, though I'd lean more strongly to weak evidence than any specific anti-Flock backlash, much as I'd prefer to believe the latter.[3][4] ________________________________ Notes: 1. Sol Wachtler: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Wachtler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Wachtler> 2. On grand juries, generally: <https://legalknowledgebase.com/what-does-it-mean-when-a-grand-jury-declines-to-indict https://legalknowledgebase.com/what-does-it-mean-when-a-gran...> 3. On dismissal of charges: <https://andrewalpert.com/blog/what-does-dismissed-with-prejudice-mean/ https://andrewalpert.com/blog/what-does-dismissed-with-preju...>

jobs_throwaway 2mo ago
The common refrain is "you can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich". The standards required to indict are quite low. The fact that they failed to get an indictment here must mean they had ~nothing.
- dredmorbius 2mo ago
  Quoted, and sourced, in the comment you're replying to. Yes, I'm aware.
  - jobs_throwaway 2mo ago
    Heh, my bad
- oceansky 2mo ago
  Judges have a lot of freedom to decide sentences. They might get one willing to throw the book on him. The risk is still there.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - dghlsakjg 2mo ago
    Judges can’t throw the book at someone who wasn’t indicted.
    - dredmorbius 2mo ago
      Depending on the jurisdiction and court procedural rules, there may be other routes to an indictment. I'm no expert on Ohio law however, so I don't know what specifically applies here.
  - jobs_throwaway 2mo ago
    How is a judge going to do that when this man wasn't even indicted?
KPGv2 2mo ago
> There are several variants here, one is "dismissed with prejudice", which means that those specific charges cannot be applied again. TFA doesn't note this (or indeed much else of substance in this case), so the presumption is that charges are dismissed without prejudice. Grand juries can't dismiss with prejudice, FWIW. That's a role for judges, but a judge wouldn't have seen the case at this stage to issue such a dismissal. "Charges were dismissed" in the article is likely reference to the actions of the grand jury. It's possibly an inartful way of saying "the charges were dropped by the prosecution."
- dredmorbius 2mo ago
  That's the part of my comment I was least comfortable with, particularly with regards to local / state jurisdictions. A judge, if involved, might request such a dismissal based on the Grand Jury's decision. Or perhaps not. My point was to clarify (I hoped) the distinction between double jeopardy and jury nullification with Grand Jury dismissal, which ... seems to be a frequently-iterated confusion in comments. What this isn't is jury nullification, whatever other win it represents for the anti-Flock crowd.
  - KPGv2 1mo ago
    Yeah you did good. I'm not the best at sounding hinged in responses online.
harimau777 2mo ago
Would this still be jury nullification in a social/political sense? That is to say: since it's well known that getting a indictment is very easy, this seems that, like jury nullification, this represents society effectively saying that they don't recognize the validity of a law. Of course like we said, we can't know for sure. Maybe the prosecutor messed up jury selection or failed to present compelling evidence.
- dredmorbius 2mo ago
  If words have meanings, no. Jury Nullification arises out of double-jeopardy protections specifically, which requires a trial and not-guilty verdict. This is a failure-to-indict only. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification>
- superxpro12 2mo ago
  Yes
tgsovlerkhgsel 2mo ago
If what the rest of the thread is saying is true (failed indictments being rare and harmful for the career of the prosecutor), the possibility of bringing the case up again seems relatively unlikely, making this de facto jury nullification.

consensus1 2mo ago

Never did

giraffe_lady 2mo ago
You ever hear of the scottsboro boys? Emmett Till's murderers were also acquitted via jury nullification, it was common for lynchings in the jim crow era. It's a tool.
- stronglikedan 2mo ago
  Lots of good tools can be used for malicious purposes, but it doesn't make them bad tools.