r/BlackPeopleTwitter • u/MGLLN • 21h ago

Could probably hear the “FOH!!” from space

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

12.8k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

108

u/ls20008179 20h ago

You as a juror have no obligation to. Jury nullification is legal

104

u/PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS 20h ago

It is, but he was voting to convict.

21

u/Numeno230n 18h ago

That is the dark side of jury nullification. In particular, this often happened in cases in the south. White juries letting off white defendants because the crime they committed was against a black person.

64

u/PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS 18h ago

Again, the guy was not doing jury nullification to get someone off. He was the sole person who voted guilty.

6

u/ericscal 17h ago

They said the dark side but then I agree they gave a bad analogy. This would more be like when southern white people convicted innocent black men of crimes just because they were black. It should also get a different name because it doesn't make sense but it is the same idea that jurors can vote anyway they want without consequences.

7

u/NoConflict3231 17h ago

The implication the person you're replying to was making was that he kept his vote BECAUSE she was white and privileged, and his views are that the same luxury would not be afforded to black men and women

-3

u/ls20008179 20h ago

It works both ways

19

u/PomegranateActive755 19h ago

No, jury nullification is ONLY legal to ACQUIT. Convicting someone without evidence BRD is ILLEGAL. And we should be happy for that.

-3

u/Miserable-Resort-977 18h ago

It's absolutely not illegal. Jury nullification is just an emergent property of the fact that jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts except in very limited cases of extreme misconduct. That means jurors can acquit when they believe someone is guilty, or convict when they believe someone is innocent. The difference is that the judge can toss out a guilty verdict in some cases, but a not guilty verdict can't be re-tried.

12

u/mdarena 18h ago edited 18h ago

No you ninny, the "nullification" in jury nullification refers specifically to nullifying the power of the state, when a juror rejects the power of the state to convict someone by acquitting. It's nullification. It goes one way. Convicting without evidence would be enabling.

-7

u/Miserable-Resort-977 18h ago

I don't care about the fine specifics of what it's called, jackass, my point, which is entirely correct, is that it's not illegal.

6

u/dimmor 18h ago

"No, jury nullification is ONLY legal to ACQUIT. Convicting someone without evidence BRD is ILLEGAL."

No one in this thread said it was illegal. You're just arguing with the wind, jackass 😉

1

u/traparms 16h ago

This was literally the comment they responded to initially lol

No, jury nullification is ONLY legal to ACQUIT. Convicting someone without evidence BRD is ILLEGAL.

3

u/dimmor 16h ago

Which is why I posted that exact quote. "Only legal to acquit" because you can't nullify into a guilty verdict.

→ More replies (0)

13

u/PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS 19h ago

Gonna be real with you man I dont think you can say jury nullification when its 1 v 11

27

u/YourConsciousness 20h ago edited 16h ago

That's about going the other direction and believing someone should be acquitted even if the law says guilty. The holdout juror was allegedly ignorning evidence and saying they had doubts but still saying guilty anyway I guess because they felt killing the kids was too messed up or they didn't agree with law around lack of criminal responsibility. They swear an oath to follow the judges instructions on the law and it would be misconduct to deliberately violate that. That's all just going off the information available, I don't know perfectly what happen in deliberation obviously and I'm not injecting my opinion there.

The legal system in general should be very favored towards not falsly imprisonning people incorrently over acquitting guilty people incorrectly. In that sense it has to be clear about things like beyond a resonable doubt.

In this case there will probably be a new trial and I would guess the verdict will be not guilty by insanity. There will be some interesting appeals before then so we'll see what happens.

2

u/ShamanicCrusader 20h ago

Having doubt is not reasonable doubt

I have some doubt the sub will rise tomorrow but its not reasonable doubt

5

u/YourConsciousness 19h ago edited 15h ago

Ya I know I was just trying to sum up what the jurors have said happened and what the legal principles are. It's not all possible doubt but beyond a reasonable doubt is still a very high standard.

The juror apparently said things like "I don't think the prosecution or defense has proved their case" which should favor the defense and he couldn't give any evidence he was using for his opinion. Apparently was scrolling on his phone not paying attention to the others jurors at some points and did a weird reenacting with the exercise bands on a bottle. If he had his phone which he shouldn't during deliberations and was scrolling on social media he very likely saw outside information on the case which is also misconduct.

If he was being a responsible juror and just came to a different opinion on the evidence that would be totally fine obviously and we wouldn't be talking about it. The jury notes during the trial and all the stuff that come out from the jurors since is really not a good look for the holdout.

1

u/ShamanicCrusader 15h ago

Ive been the black guy who is doing the right thing but made to look bad because i disagree on some opinion

This very much seems like the case where he disagrees and people cant accept that so they look for any way to tear him down so it makes their case stronger

4

u/YourConsciousness 13h ago edited 9h ago

If that's actually the case then I stand by his right to do that but some of the details of this jury have been weird and unprecedented. There have been lots of 11-1 hung juries and I've never seen anything like the jury note about reasonable doubt before. The fact that there are multiple other jurors saying similar things about him being arrogant or not having evidence and saying there was doubt but wanting to convict seems bizarre to me.

If it's true that he was scrolling on his phone during deliberations then it's very hard to take his side. I'd want to hear his perspective on things, I think his name will be released in two weeks after the end of the trial anyway unless the judge blocks it. If he gives an interview and says he came to his opinion after reviewing all the evidence and he understood and followed the law instructions then I would be fully supportive of his decision. If he says something like 'she was a psychotic woman who killed her kids and it doesn't matter the law says on responsibility she should be in jail' then that would be pretty messed up.

Imagine a different situation where it's a black guy on trial for murder. Maybe there's a tiny bit of doubt about the correct identification but they're are almost certain the guy did it. What if it's a racist jury and they say well there's some doubt they've proved that's the guy but he seems guilty and he's black so we wanna convict him. Surely you would have a problem with that legally and ethically.

One more thing about doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means moral certainty to the highest degree possible in matters of human affairs. In the jury room they're not talking about all possible things like the sun not coming up tomorrow or living in a simulation. They are spending the time talking about the case and and the most probable situations and understandings of the evidence, if interpreting the facts through deliberation easily brings up doubts then those are reasonable doubts. If he indeed said something like "I don't think the prosecution or defense has proved their case" or if he "admitted he had reasonable doubt but is still not going to say that guilty by reason of insanity" but would give no logic or evidence then it sounds like he did have reasonable doubt but would just not move from his stance anyway.

1

u/AmarantaRWS 19h ago

I know it's a typo but I just pictured you as a really confident submariner.

-8

u/ls20008179 20h ago

It works both ways

4

u/YourConsciousness 19h ago

Jury nullification is specifically about finding someone innocent, that term doesn't mean both ways.

Yes jurors are free to form their opinion on any verdict for any reason and they don't have to say why. In principle it should be only based on the evidence and following the law instructions of the judge. That's why I said deliberately violating instructions and if they said they were doing that it could be a problem.

3

u/[deleted] 19h ago edited 19h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/theshoeshiner84 19h ago

That's no different than the other way around though, no? Either way they fail their legal duty.

3

u/[deleted] 19h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/theshoeshiner84 19h ago

Agreed. Though I still am not certain that that is what happened here. Everything about the jurors reasoning is hearsay by a bunch of attention seekers.

0

u/Giantewok 19h ago

If they failed their legal duty, they would’ve been removed when Lindsay Clancy’s attorney asked for his removal. 

1

u/theshoeshiner84 19h ago

Pretty certain the question asked was using a less technical meaning.

0

u/Giantewok 18h ago

Yeah I know. I’m saying that I disagree because if the lone juror truly ignored the judges instructions, they would’ve been removed. I just served on a jury 2 months ago so it’s all fresh for me.

1

u/WordWordNvmber 18h ago

It's probably not legal. It's just not stoppable. Jurors take an oath to follow the judge's instructions on evaluating evidence and applying the law.

But we've decided it would generally be bad to interrogate jurors about their private deliberations, since that would undermine jurors' confidence in their confidential discussions.

1

u/CiaphasCain8849 13h ago

This isn't jury nullification.