Prosecutor Mike Jette urged the jury to find Kelly guilty of reckless manslaughter or negligent homicide if they forgo finding the defendant guilty of second-degree murder.
Well now, in civilized nations we call this 'jury tampering'.
Jury tampering is so little enforced that Lawyers regularly and openly discuss doing it on cases as a matter of course.
Plenty of huge cases they deliberately pick jurors based on things like their death penalty stance or their race because they know it'll influence the entire case for them.
I mean we should charge him with murder and manslaughter since he makes himself responsible for the murders they commit when he protects them. I'm also well aware that there isn't snowball's chance in Hell that he'll be charged for anything.
Maybe I misunderstand. Was this outside of the context of court? Because if he was speaking in court, in his capacity as a prosecutor, and convicting of a lesser charge was something the jury was permitted to do, how is that "tampering?" Isn't that like saying that a defense attorney saying, "and that's why you should find the defendant not guilty" in closing remarks is "tampering?"
Over here, defense attorneys aren't allowed to do that either. Best they can say is "I believe, given the findings of this trial, that my client is innocent." if the court case goes in the defendant's favor.
Well now, in civilized nations we call this 'jury tampering'.
In a civilized nation this guy would get a medal for protecting the border.
Can't we charge this retard prosecutor for that? It's surely justified based on the murders the animals he's fighting for commit.
Jury tampering is so little enforced that Lawyers regularly and openly discuss doing it on cases as a matter of course.
Plenty of huge cases they deliberately pick jurors based on things like their death penalty stance or their race because they know it'll influence the entire case for them.
I mean we should charge him with murder and manslaughter since he makes himself responsible for the murders they commit when he protects them. I'm also well aware that there isn't snowball's chance in Hell that he'll be charged for anything.
Maybe I misunderstand. Was this outside of the context of court? Because if he was speaking in court, in his capacity as a prosecutor, and convicting of a lesser charge was something the jury was permitted to do, how is that "tampering?" Isn't that like saying that a defense attorney saying, "and that's why you should find the defendant not guilty" in closing remarks is "tampering?"
Over here, defense attorneys aren't allowed to do that either. Best they can say is "I believe, given the findings of this trial, that my client is innocent." if the court case goes in the defendant's favor.