Jury nullification is the term for when a jury declines to convict a defendant despite overwhelming evidence of guilt. This can be a form of civil disobedience, a political statement against a specific law, or a show of empathy and support to the defendant.
“It’s not a legal defense sanctioned under the law,” said Cheryl Bader, associate professor of law at Fordham School of Law. “It’s a reaction by the jury to a legal result that they feel would be so unjust or morally wrong that they refuse to impose it, despite what the law says.”
Lemmy’s not gonna like what I have to say, but jury nullification is simply not going to happen here. It will require the entire jury to agree, and as popular as this POV is here on Lemmy, I sincerely doubt you will be able to sneak 12 NYC jurors through jury selection that are inclined to do this. Maybe for some other non-violent crime, but not for walking up to a man in front of the Hilton and shooting him dead, no matter what his rationale is. They all walk down Sixth Avenue regularly, they’re not gonna all agree to hold this guy unaccountable for murder in broad daylight. (Particularly when they all mocked Trump for saying he could get away with it, one avenue over.)
Now, it is possible that one person might sneak on the jury who finds that Mangione is a sympathetic figure, and insists on not convicting him. But that is a different situation. When the jury is at a fundamental impasse and can’t agree on any verdict (a hung jury) the judge will order a new trial and they do it all over again. And, it’s also possible for Mangione to get let off entirely if the prosecutors are morons and make fundamental errors. (Case in point: Trump’s Georgia trial, where Trump managed to run out the clock due to the prosecution’s unforced errors). But if the evidence is really there, I really doubt 12 New Yorkers will agree and say “Yeah, he did it, but shouldn’t be punished for it”.
Did you read the article? From the article:
Jury nullification is the term for when a jury declines to convict a defendant despite overwhelming evidence of guilt. This can be a form of civil disobedience, a political statement against a specific law, or a show of empathy and support to the defendant.>
from NY Courts - Criminal Trial
In a jury trial, after all the testimony has been heard and all the evidence has been presented, the Jury is given instructions on the law by the Judge. The jury then goes to the jury room to deliberate, which means to look at and review all the evidence and testimony. The jury tries to make a decision on whether the defendant is guilty or innocent, which is called reaching a verdict. The verdict must be unanimous, meaning every juror must agree on the verdict. If they can’t all agree, this is called a hung jury, and the Judge will have to declare a mistrial. A mistrial does not mean that the case is over. After a mistrial, the prosecutor can choose to try the case again.>
That means as long as one juror refuses to give in to pressure to convict they can nullify. They don’t need 12. In other words jury nullification <> being found not guilty
Never thought I’d see a mainstream outlet discussing this. There’s less plausible deniability for potential jurors now
I am confident some evidence will be debatable. It’s quite possible that jurors can honestly say they aren’t convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. The arrest alone is bizarre, and the trial will bring all sorts of things.
They can’t dismiss all the jury candidates…
