Too many of the potential jurors said that even if the defendant, Elisa Meadows, was guilty, they were unwilling to issue the $500 fine a city attorney was seeking, said Ren Rideauxx, Meadows’ attorney.

  • trackcharlie@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 months ago

    You’re not wrong, but when you get selected for jury duty the selecting lawyer will make inquiries about your knowledge on the subject and disqualify you if you admit knowing about it.

    If you bring it up to the jury, that can also have you disqualified as well as anyone else the lawyers think were influenced by the discussion.

    The third option is supposed to ‘naturally’ occurr, as in the jury agrees that the law was broken but the situation is so ‘outside the scope of the law’ that the law can no longer be applied. (IIRC the judge can overrule the jury in this case, but it can be a pain)

    Essentially it’s up to the judge to determine whether the jury’s conclusion is within the realm of the ‘third option’.

    • gregorum
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah. That’s why people, who could be jurors, should be generally educated on the subject.

      I was trying to be subtle.

      • trackcharlie@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        I don’t have the data to say one way or the other. I can definitely see how public knowledge of the third option can be abused, especially these days when political alignment is more important than facts to many people.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Which is why you just say you don’t believe the prosecutors proved the case. Also, there’s supposed to be a limit on the number of jurors lawyers can dismiss, for exactly this reason. They’re spending well more than the cost of the fine just trying to empanel a jury at this point.

      • trackcharlie@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        If we wanted a justice system that didn’t waste money, we’d be authoritarian in nature.

        The money wasted is to insure ‘as even a case’ as possible, regardless of the crime.

        That’s the idea anyway.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          When I say wasting money here, I mean because you’re not going to get a guilty verdict. Not in the authoritarian judge dredd sense. In fact, in other articles it’s clear the city has brought a bunch of these cases and has gotten zero convictions.

          So it really seems like someone decided they’re going to win this one even if they have to go through 100 sessions of jury selection. (They’ve gone though about 30 so far)