OWS activist faces 7 years in prison for being sexually assaulted by a cop

[Badger]

WTF Snowstalker? She assaulted a police officer, this was ascertained by a jury of eight women and four men.

The video proves that the cop assaulted her - not the other way around.

Then how is it that all twelve jurors didn't see it the "correct" way?

The jury could have been paid off.

It is so *cute* how you think that anyone would see the Occupy movement to be a sufficient threat to the powers that be that they would waste money buying a jury to wrongfully convict one random person.
[/quote]

"Cute?" He's adorable!

[Badger]

Now the jury says they were MISLED by the prosecution!!! They weren't even informed about the possible penalty or other key facts of the case.

How can anyone get a fair trial when we let liars prosecute cases?

Nor outside a capital case should jurors EVER know of the possible penalties. Their job is to determine whether under the facts/evidence and the law the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sentencing is the perview of the court. Jury nullification is a bad, bad thing.

[Badger]

Now the jury says they were MISLED by the prosecution!!! They weren't even informed about the possible penalty or other key facts of the case.

How can anyone get a fair trial when we let liars prosecute cases?

Nor outside a capital case should jurors EVER know of the possible penalties.

That's basically impossible.

Jury nullification is a bad, bad thing.

STRONGLY disagree. For example I would NEVER convict someone of a marijuana-related crime.

Then you should NEVER serve on a jury involving a marijuana-related offense. You have a right to your views, but when one's views keep them from being a fair and impartial juror, then it's a violation of your oath of office to serve.

If you lie about it in jury selection (including remaining silent when asked about such views), it's arguably perjury.

[Badger]

Nor outside a capital case should jurors EVER know of the possible penalties. Their job is to determine whether under the facts/evidence and the law the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sentencing is the perview of the court. Jury nullification is a bad, bad thing.

Our system is supposed to be based on fully informed juries. There are times when a jury has a right to nullify.

In fact, juries in Kentucky decide the sentence - not just the question of innocence or guilt.

"Fully informed" means on the evidence, and what the law requires for a conviction. NOT penalties, for again, that is the court's perview. If there are mitigating circumstances, that is for the court to determine in minimizing penalties, NOT for the jury to give a mulligan to a defendant proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt just because they don't like what could happen in sentencing.

Remember, jury nullification goes both ways. Do you want a jury to be improperly swayed to convict someone of a misdemeanor marijuana possession case because they know the most that could happen is (e.g.) 30 days which the judge might suspend for probation? Do you want some jury in Redneck County to decide "yeah, he sure stomped the tar out of that f#ggo@ ni#$er, but he seems like a nice guy who just drank too much and lost his cool. He doesn't deserve up to 5 years in prison for beating up someone like that!"

I'm not licensed in KY and can't definitively contradict your claim about jurors deciding sentences in non-capital cases, but like the vast majority of things you post, I take that with a huge boulder of salt.

[Badger]

Then you should NEVER serve on a jury involving a marijuana-related offense. You have a right to your views, but when one's views keep them from being a fair and impartial juror, then it's a violation of your oath of office to serve.

If you lie about it in jury selection (including remaining silent when asked about such views), it's arguably perjury.

Defendants have a right to be tried by a jury that's been informed of the facts.

We need to find smart judges who'll toss out convictions that have resulted from uninformed juries.

Potential sentence =/= facts of the case. What the hell does this even mean?

[Badger]

"Fully informed" means on the evidence, and what the law requires for a conviction. NOT penalties, for again, that is the court's perview. If there are mitigating circumstances, that is for the court to determine in minimizing penalties, NOT for the jury to give a mulligan to a defendant proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt just because they don't like what could happen in sentencing.

Smart jurors consider this stuff all the time. I've heard of cases where jurors decided not to convict on one charge because they knew the defendant was going to get a stiff enough sentence for a different charge.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've had to do jury duty in Kentucky several times.

Jurors like that are disobeying their oath and violating the law. They shouldn't but they do.

Are you sure you weren't before a jury several times?

Seriously though, that's neat to learn. Can you tell me about some of the decisions you had to make regarding penalties vs. guilt/innocence?

[Badger]

Seriously though, that's neat to learn. Can you tell me about some of the decisions you had to make regarding penalties vs. guilt/innocence?

Unfortunately, I didn't get to make many actual decisions, because jury duty is an infrequent occurrence. But I always viewed jury duty as my responsibility to help correct a flawed justice system.

What, acquit someone to "fight the power" as opposed to actually weigh the evidence?

I'm sure that rape victim will raise her fist with you in a defiant salute against The System as her attacker walks out of court unpunished.

[Badger]

Seriously though, that's neat to learn. Can you tell me about some of the decisions you had to make regarding penalties vs. guilt/innocence?

Unfortunately, I didn't get to make many actual decisions, because jury duty is an infrequent occurrence. But I always viewed jury duty as my responsibility to help correct a flawed justice system.

What, acquit someone to "fight the power" as opposed to actually weigh the evidence?

I'm sure that rape victim will raise her fist with you in a defiant salute against The System as her attacker walks out of court unpunished.

In fairness, I don't see why Bandit would be inclined to acquit a rapist, which is obviously not what he (I assume) is opposed to indicting people for.

True, but the poison of jury nullification knows no bounds.

[Badger]

WTF Snowstalker? She assaulted a police officer, this was ascertained by a jury of eight women and four men.

From your article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And....?