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.
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.
Nah, it wasn't what I was thinking, just not super knowledgeable about the finer details of US legal proceedings. But thanks for the information.