If the charges land before a leftist judge, it doesn’t matter. If the decision goes to a leftist jury, it doesn’t matter.
In Minnesota, they had a radical leftist jury with literal BLM activists for the Chauvin trial. They convicted him in just a few hours. All of the jurors claimed to be more politically moderate and impartial during their interviews because that’s how you get on juries. Then they shamelessly voted their politics. Same thing happened with OJ Simpson.
This is the most important part, we already have the judge being a leftist and the jury coming in should immediately be dismissed on political voting grounds but won’t
For all the talk of "jury nullification", the inverse is also true. There's nothing to stop a jury from finding an innocent person guilty if they so desire.
Isn't that a good way to ensure a re-trial though? I don't know enough about the specifics of law to know for certain, but that seems like a surefire way for an appeal to get granted for a re-trial.
A retrial would be double-jeopardy if the judge enters a verdict after throwing out the jury verdict. Maybe you are thinking of a judge dismissing the case because the jury was tainted, which they can also do. Then you can have a retrial.
If the charges land before a leftist judge, it doesn’t matter. If the decision goes to a leftist jury, it doesn’t matter.
In Minnesota, they had a radical leftist jury with literal BLM activists for the Chauvin trial. They convicted him in just a few hours. All of the jurors claimed to be more politically moderate and impartial during their interviews because that’s how you get on juries. Then they shamelessly voted their politics. Same thing happened with OJ Simpson.
Law and order are dead in blue counties.
This is the most important part, we already have the judge being a leftist and the jury coming in should immediately be dismissed on political voting grounds but won’t
For all the talk of "jury nullification", the inverse is also true. There's nothing to stop a jury from finding an innocent person guilty if they so desire.
There kind of is. The judge can throw out a jury conviction if he wants to.
They almost never do, but there was talk of the Rittenhouse judge maybe doing that if the jury convicted since it was so obviously self-defense.
Isn't that a good way to ensure a re-trial though? I don't know enough about the specifics of law to know for certain, but that seems like a surefire way for an appeal to get granted for a re-trial.
A retrial would be double-jeopardy if the judge enters a verdict after throwing out the jury verdict. Maybe you are thinking of a judge dismissing the case because the jury was tainted, which they can also do. Then you can have a retrial.
Its a leftist judge for sure. Judge's daughter worked on Cackles' campaign.
One of the Chauvin jurors actually bragged about blm if I remember correctly. I honestly hope he gets his trial reviewed someday.