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

107

u/PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS 20h ago

It is, but he was voting to convict.

23

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.

60

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.

7

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.

4

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

-6

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.

-2

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.

9

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.

2

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.

1

u/traparms 16h ago

But it's still not illegal to "convict without evidence" (which is what that comment was saying) because juries cannot be punished for their verdict.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/mdarena 12h ago

Nullifying into a guilty verdict would just be railroading or enabling the state. It doesn't need a separate term, like nullification.

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