5 ms·

It is my understanding that the Espionage Act does not allow for an affirmative defense -- so Snowden can't claim that he was justified in releasing the materia

It is my understanding that the Espionage Act does not allow for an affirmative defense -- so Snowden can't claim that he was justified in releasing the materials, rather he can only dispute the facts as presented by the prosecution. But since we all pretty much agree about the facts of the case, the outcome is predictable. It would be "fair and open" in some sense, I guess, but the game is rigged. (Not to say that he is innocent or guilty, just that "come face charges" is basically equivalent to "come serve jail time" in this case.)

Zikes 11y ago
As I tried to point out below, this is exactly the situation jury nullification was designed for. Guilty under the law, but pardoned by a jury of his peers.
- voxic11 11y ago
  Yeah but the government would never allow someone who would nullify the law to serve on his jury. Just like they removed all jurors who wouldn't consider the death penalty from the Boston bomber trial.
- cgearhart 11y ago
  Even so, few people know that jury notification is an option (and promoting it is actively discouraged by the legal community), and it would be hard to convince a jury that he was justified because he wouldn't even be allowed to claim or present evidence that it was justified. He would just have to hope that his jury knew about nullification, and that they knew enough about the case beforehand to believe he was justified despite the prosecution presenting evidence that he willingly broke the law. Those are long odds.
- basch 11y ago
  jury nullification isnt designed, it is a byproduct of the system. it is a consequence of the arrangement, not a purposeful inclusion.
- caskance 11y ago
  This is exactly the case a pardon is designed for.
chrisbennet 11y ago
From Elsbergs Wikipedia page: "Ellsberg was silenced before he could begin. According to Ellsberg, his "lawyer, exasperated, said he 'had never heard of a case where a defendant was not permitted to tell the jury why he did what he did.' The judge responded: well, you're hearing one now. And so it has been with every subsequent whistleblower under indictment"

Zikes 11y ago

As I tried to point out below, this is exactly the situation jury nullification was designed for. Guilty under the law, but pardoned by a jury of his peers.

voxic11 11y ago
Yeah but the government would never allow someone who would nullify the law to serve on his jury. Just like they removed all jurors who wouldn't consider the death penalty from the Boston bomber trial.
cgearhart 11y ago
Even so, few people know that jury notification is an option (and promoting it is actively discouraged by the legal community), and it would be hard to convince a jury that he was justified because he wouldn't even be allowed to claim or present evidence that it was justified. He would just have to hope that his jury knew about nullification, and that they knew enough about the case beforehand to believe he was justified despite the prosecution presenting evidence that he willingly broke the law. Those are long odds.
basch 11y ago
jury nullification isnt designed, it is a byproduct of the system. it is a consequence of the arrangement, not a purposeful inclusion.
caskance 11y ago
This is exactly the case a pardon is designed for.

chrisbennet 11y ago

From Elsbergs Wikipedia page: "Ellsberg was silenced before he could begin. According to Ellsberg, his "lawyer, exasperated, said he 'had never heard of a case where a defendant was not permitted to tell the jury why he did what he did.' The judge responded: well, you're hearing one now. And so it has been with every subsequent whistleblower under indictment"