Imagine the utter confusion on a judge's face if a prosecutor found out that 9 of 12 jurors voted guilty on a criminal case, and he just took that as a win.
"Counselor... we have a hung jury. I'm going to have to declare a mistrial. Why are you celebrating?"
"Your honor, a solid bipartisan majority of the jury declared him guilty!"
"... okay, but it needs to be unanimous."
"Yeah, but that means he's basically guilty. I can use this against him in another case!"
"... ... How did you get here and why are you in my court?"
Underlining precisely why they wanted to do this in the Senate ... the plan, all along, was to pull the kinds of stunts that would get you kicked out of any court worthy of the name.
That's certainly an interesting way to spin a "not guilty" verdict.
Perhaps such a standard should be applied to certain members of the current administration.
Imagine the utter confusion on a judge's face if a prosecutor found out that 9 of 12 jurors voted guilty on a criminal case, and he just took that as a win.
"Counselor... we have a hung jury. I'm going to have to declare a mistrial. Why are you celebrating?"
"Your honor, a solid bipartisan majority of the jury declared him guilty!"
"... okay, but it needs to be unanimous."
"Yeah, but that means he's basically guilty. I can use this against him in another case!"
"... ... How did you get here and why are you in my court?"
Underlining precisely why they wanted to do this in the Senate ... the plan, all along, was to pull the kinds of stunts that would get you kicked out of any court worthy of the name.
Wait, you can't introduce new evidence in closing statements???
There's also a remarkable lack of success using "...but black!" as an argument in a more conventional judicial setting