In other news

I've not really referring sentence discounts for cooperating or pleading guilty although that can also be abused*. It's the practice of threatening people who are disadvantaged in the justice system anyway with much more serious charge to coerce a guilty plea to a lessor charge that is 'evil' (plus it's great for the privileged).

Last time it was brought up around here the usual P kiddies went nuts. The use of the word 'coercion' got some odd vitriolic flack.

*

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/oct...

It's ok plea bargaining came up. It's just so obviously heinous that I threw it in as an example.

Or we have reached the point where no one is even pretending Britain is a liberal democracy anymore, where rule of law matters. It is just sectarian conflict, where innocence or guilt is determined by what side of the sectarian aisle you are on.

That's a pair of non secateurs

Where is Nancy Guthrie?

There is certainly overlap with Fuentes and MAGA, but there are important differences. The biggest being that MAGA is typically very much pro-Israel. Nick not so much.

I don't know, but if anyone is planning to send fake ransom requests don't do it by text from your cell phone:

https://www.azfamily.com/2026/02/05/california-man-accused-being-ransom-note-imposter-nancy-guthrie-case/

https://www.azfamily.com

California man accused of being ransom note ‘imposter’ in Nancy Guthrie case

I meant whether you are allowed as a lawyer to tell jurors that they are free to disregard the judge's instructions on the law.

I don't think that's allowed here either or should be. It's whether you can say, as appears to have happened, that you have an absolute right to acquit even given the judge is right on the law. i.e it's not lawful to have hit him. You can fully agree that it's unlawful to hit him and you still have the right to acquit.

The problem is that judges might say you don't have that right to acquit if you decide the action was unlawful. You can't normally get away with pointing out that that is the jury's responsibility and that is not up to the judge. That's where we left it I think You're argument as understand it was 'that it's up to the judge to decide if it's up to the judge to decide if jury nullification is lawful" My counter argument is that "it's not up to then judge to decide if it's up to the judge ..."

As if often the case, I don't really understand what you mean by the bolded, but it doesn't really sound like my position. It isn't really to the judge to decide whether obvious jury nullification can be tolerated in a criminal case in the United States. If a jury returns a not guilty verdict in a criminal case, that the end of the story. Because of the Double Jeopardy Clause in the Constitution, the judge can't overturn a not guilty verdict simply because he or she thinks it was an instance of jury nullification. I obviously would not be in favor of eliminating the Double Jeopardy Clause from the Constitution. The only practical exception to the Double Jeopardy rule would be if the defendant were shown to have bribed the judge or jury. In that exceedingly rare case, a new trial would be permitted on the theory that the defendant was never in jeopardy in the first trial.

Interestingly, the judge can overturn a guilty verdict in a U.S. criminal trial if the judge believes that there is compelling evidence of reasonable doubt. I suspect that this form of taking power from the jury doesn't bother you, just as it does not bother me.

Double Jeopardy does not apply in civil cases.

The previous discussion I remember with you centered around lying as a prospective juror about whether you would follow the judge's instructions on the law in order to get put on a jury. As I recall, you thought this was fine, at least for certain types of cases. I thought you should say that you would have a moral objection to applying the law in this sort of case, which of course would result in you not being selected for the jury. This happens all the time in death penalty cases, which is a problem because it means that you inevitably end up with a "death qualified" jury. But it wouldn't be a problem in my ideal world because the death penalty would not be an option in my ideal world.

Sounds like the person telling the story has no clue or is purposefully spreading misinformation. Based on the sentence about immigration, I'll wager it is a combination of both from some anti-immigration account on social media.

Both sides have already started to implement the deal, so there is no reason to doubt to doubt that this is very much a serious and consequential trade agreement between gargantuan economies.

In most matters of politics and diplomacy The EU might be a ponderous beast, often make indecisive by the veto powers of its individual member states and lack of central authority. However, this is not the case in in matters of trade, where it actually has extensive powers and provisions. This is because the EU was originally an organization to make member states into a single market, then named the "the European Coal and Steel Community". Trade is the one area where it can move dramatically and decisively if needed.

That said, US instability and incompetence in matters of trade and ensuing chaos likely oiled the machinery in their respective governments / bodies. For both sides, the other party probably looked a lot more inviting than future dependency on China.

"Spiting Trump" had no impact. While it might be the reality in the US, The EU isn't run by a clown show which throws tantrums, and if they do it does not happen publicly and there is no indicator it affects trade agreements. That said, it is certainly interesting that "spiting Trump" is seen as "spiting the US". I did not think you guys were a monarchy yet.

@ rococco I don't think the jury has absolute power either. Trial Justice should favour the suspect imo so you're correct I agree with you.

Yes I'm okay with lying in very specific ****ed up situations. I'd even argue it's the moral thing to do. This usually happens when the immorality in the situation comes from questions like "do you have moral issues with the death penalty" when you know you can be immorally disqualified for not lying.

Let me rewrite the bolded:

"I'm going to accept the judges guidance on the law. I'm not going to accept that jurors are bound by that law within their specific duty as jurors. Juries are part of a system of justice that includes the law but is not subservient to it."

I prefer that version as now it allows that the judge can say it unlawful for jurors to not be subservient to the law and I can agree with a logical 'shrug'

There is very little practical difference between what you wrote above and "The role of the jury is to do whatever it believes is right, regardless of the law or the facts."

This formulation seems workable to you because you are imagining jurors who more or less share your moral sensibilities. I suspect that a factually innocent black man on trial before an all white jury in Mississippi in 1957 would have had a different perspective on your argument that the jury should simply do what it believes is best, no matter the law or facts.

It's hard for me to say 'NO!' louder. i do not remotely think that.

I also believe strongly in democracy. Again i don't believe people more or less share my moral sensibilities.

I wouldn't allow all white juries. And I think verdicts should be tested by a lot of whataboutism on appeal. Plus loads of other stuff. I fairly sure your hypothetical black man would fare way betetr under my my idea of a justice system. Not least that he wouldn't be coerced into pleading guilty.

I have no idea what the bolded means, either practically or theoretically.

My hypothetical man would far better under almost any legal system than the system that prevailed in Mississippi in 1957. My point was that many white jurors in Mississippi during that time operated in very much the way that you wanted them to operate -- that is, they just did whatever the **** they wanted, with little regard for the facts or the law.

It means that you can appeal on the basis that the verdict/sentence/prosecution is perversely harsh compared to how others are treated.

I don't want them to operate with little regard for the facts or law. I'm sure many did and still do.

Already being discussed in the Trump thread.

I don't know how this "compare and contrast" appellate system would work when it comes to liability. It doesn't seem remotely practical for an appellate court to review the trial records of dozens or hundreds of cases to assess whether person X should have been convicted if persons A, D, F, and G were not convicted. Also, jury verdicts often depend on assessments by juries of the credibility of witnesses. Appellate courts are very poorly positioned to assess credibility years after the fact on a dry written record.

But in many ways, you do. You just want it to be done selectively. You would prefer that it be done in line with your moral sensibilities, but you acknowledge that won't always be the case. I get it. This is more or less how criminal justice operated for centuries -- that is, with less focus on facts, law, and procedure, and more focus on whether the community wants to see someone punished. Maybe we haven't actually proven that this seventeen year old girl is a witch, but we as a community certainly don't like what she is doing, so guilty as charged.

I have a fair idea. There would be the same sort of precedent concept that there is with cases. Part of it would be an on-going academic study of sentencing etc etc that can be referred to. I'm fairly sure a lot of it exists anyway but if not start doing it.

No I absolutely don't. I'd like a total commitment to the facts and law. Both of which very strongly inform the verdict.

No one should ever be prosecuted for something that isn't against the law (what crime are they being charged with?). So your witch is example is a red herring. The reverse is actually true - I think juries could find someone innocent of witchcraft even if it were against the law and all the facts (whatever we imagine them to be) were proven.

Probably somewhere in the Sonoran desert, unfortunately. That poor woman.

This case is interesting. I think the ransom letters sent to TMZ and the local Tucson stations are real. The letter was sent to the local station on Monday, and when the station didn't announce it, and the sheriff didn't say anything about it at his press conference on Tuesday, the abductor was frustrated he wasn't getting the attention they wanted, and passed it on to TMZ, a company he knew would report on it right away. The abductor is also tech-savvy in that their digital footprint in sending the emails was untraceable.

I think this was an abduction for the purpose of gaining a ransom from Savannah's family, but the abductor didn't know Nancy's health concerns, and Nancy has been dead since Monday or Tuesday. The abductor attempted ransom, but abandoned the ransom plan when proof of life was requested and they were unable to provide it, ditched her somewhere in the desert, and is now hiding and not doing anything to give off their identity.

I think your right add in the age not looking good . It amazes me if your a celebrities mom you get all the press and people . If it was you or me no one would care

If we were starting from scratch, I wouldn't sign on to a justice schema where I couldn't nullify the enforcement of a law (I created through the legislative process) if it didn't fit with my intentions.

The only real downside to that position is that if I didn't support the creation of the law in the first place I could override the majority will of the people who did support it by ignoring the facts and law and acquiting.

That's not so bad because how the laws would be enforced would be reflective of the universality of the will of the people. So if a law wasn't popular to begin with there's a higher likelihood of it getting nullified.

All things considered I'm pretty impressed by how well 12 randos do so I wouldn't want a "professional" juror who would never nullify.

cuba is about to run out of oil within a few weeks . I guess there was a reason the cuban elite guard were holding down Venezuela

There can be majority verdicts which means a few jurors have to nullify. That's the system in the uk despite the pretense that jury nullification isn't a real thing in practice. No system is perfect but perfection has never been the aim of any good justice system. "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." is foundational for example.

Jury nullification is a vital part of check and balance but I'd argue the very debate is indicative of a far bigger problem. As with democracy, the good stuff in the justice systems comes from moral convictions and arguments. This was to a large extent successfully embedded within systems and processes. Then people think its the systems and processes that cause the good stuff and abdicate moral responsibility to those systems and processes. Then it starts to decay , slowly at first, because it wasn't the systems and processes that underpinned anything. It was the moral conviction that mattered and still matters.

And just to repeat despite what Rococo says, none of this remotely requires that I think everyone shares my moral sensibilities. I most certainly don't think that. it's a system built on the recognition that, among other things, people have differing moral sensibilities.

Kyle Rittenhouse and his new bride taking wedding pictures holding an AR-15 is certainly a choice.

https://nypost.com/video/kyle-rittenhouse-gets-hitched-pictured-with-bride-wielding-ar-15/?dicbo=v2-uiJtMxd

New York Post

Kyle Rittenhouse gets hitched, pictured with bride wielding AR-15

by Rococo m

Kyle Rittenhouse and his new bride taking wedding pictures holding an AR-15 is certainly a choice.

https://nypost.com/video/kyle-rittenhouse-gets-hitched-pictured-with-bride-wielding-ar-15/?dicbo=v2-uiJtMxd

New York Post

Kyle Rittenhouse gets hitched, pictured with bride wielding AR-15

You think he should have gone with the AK?