OH YEAH THEYRE TALKING ABOUT IT NOW
Please do not remove mods, really sorry for the Google AMP link, but this is a “subscribers only” blocked article on CNN that for some reason AMP just straight up bypasses and opens fine.
Direct link: https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/10/us/jury-nullification-luigi-mangione-defense/index.html.
Edit 1: updated title, CNN changed it on me
Repost of my own comment in a different community:
I would say that jury nullification isn’t just some accident of the legal system, but the primary reason we have juries in the first place.
Judges will say that juries are meant to just decide the simple facts of the case. But what sane person would ever design a system that assigns 12 random untrained nobodies to do that task? If all that mattered was judging the facts of the case, why not have 12 legal scholars instead? Why isn’t “juror” a profession, just like being a lawyer or judge is? If we want people to just apply the letter of the law to the facts of a case, why not fill juries with professionals, each who had a legal degree, and who have sat as jurors hundreds of times? Judging evidence and reading law is a skill. And it’s one that can be educated on, trained, and practiced. Why do we have amateur juries, when professional juries would clearly do their purported job so much better? Or why not just do what some countries do, and have most or all trials decided solely by judges? What exactly is the point of a jury? Compared to everything else in the courtroom, the jurors, the ones actually deciding guilt or innocence, are a bunch of untrained amateurs. On its face, it makes no damn sense!
No, the true reason, and really the only reason, we have juries at all is so that juries can serve to judge both the accused AND the law. Juries are meant to be the final line of defense against unjust laws and prosecution. It is possible for a law itself to be criminal or corrupt. Legislative systems can easily be taken over by a tiny wealthy or powerful minority of the population, and they can end up passing laws criminalizing behaviors that the vast majority of the population don’t even consider to be crimes.
The entire purpose of having a jury is that it places the final power of guilt and innocence directly in the hands of the people. Juries are meant as a final line of defense against corrupt laws passed by a minority against the wishes of the greater majority. An unaccountable elite can pass whatever ridiculous self-serving laws they want. But if the common people simply refuse to uphold those laws in the jury box, those laws are meaningless.
THAT is the purpose of a jury. It is the only reason juries are worth the trouble. A bunch of rank amateurs will never be able to judge the facts of a case better than actual trained legal scholars with years of experience. But by empowering juries, it places the final authority of the law firmly in the hands of the people. That is the value of having a jury at all.
Jury nullification is not just some strange quirk or odd loophole in our justice system. It’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place.
Hmm, maybe convict him, but give him no penalty and no imprisonment?
That’s a thing, right?
We the jury find the defendant GUILTY! We sentance him to a fine of $1 and a lifetime membership to United Healthcare!
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Yeah, I think that happened to some really important guy a few days back.
I believe the jury decides guilt or innocence, but the judge determines the sentence… In most cases
Honestly, I’m amazed Luigi hasn’t had an “accident” in jail
Not sure if you refer to this accident, but Jeffrey knew too much and was a risk. Luigi is not a risk anymore, his followers are. And they would probably be fueled by his death.
Yeah; he’s already become evangelised to an absolutely insane degree globally that the ruling class didn’t see coming, making any rash moves, especially any that would martydom him, would backfire.
“I wonder whether a jury, whether they get impaneled, really buys his message, hates health care so much that they say, ‘Hey, look, we saw what you did. We know what you did, but we’ll excuse it,’” CNN Legal Analyst Joey Jackson said last month.
Sure, ‘hating healthcare’ is the issue here…
Jury nullification is an important logical conclusion of American jurist rules. This post will stay up.
https://lemmy.world/comment/14404101
A very important explanation
Based
deleted by creator
Jury nullification doesn’t really exist. It’s just an attempt to label something the jury decides that you believe goes against the law. The fact is, the jury is part of the law, and the jury can decide what parts of it are relevant, are enforceable in the case, and which need special considerations. Complaining about “jury nullification” is complaining about one of the fewest democratic elements in the judicial system, a system that on its own is almost completely autocratic and as such that much more susceptible to the formation of oligarchies and nepotism from within.
Is it true there only needs to be one holdout in the 12 to grind it to a halt?
Yes
It’s actually the conclusion of 2 things:
- Double Jeopardy means your cannot try someone twice for the same crime
- A juror cannot be held accountable for a decision they make
If both hold true, then logically, a jury can make a decision against legal precedent, without fear of repercussion - unless they are paid/coerced to come to that conclusion, and the defendant - once cleared by by a jury - cannot be tried again.
This means that legally, a jury can say GTFO to jury instructions set by judges.
This means that legally, a jury can say GTFO to jury instructions set by judges.
Only when it comes to acquittals though, which aren’t appealable. Those decisions can and will be reversed in civil cases or if people convict inappropriately. You mentioned as much by noting double Jeopardy but I still think it’s an important distinction that makes it irregular.
The salient question is not whether it exists, but whether it’s a feature or a bug.
If jurors are intended to resolve questions of law, then judges really have no purpose. Just let jurors decide based on how much they like the defendant.
You may as well just do trial by combat instead - equally as just but far more entertaining.
By that logic, why bother with democracy and not trial by combat?
The problem with your logic is that you assume jurors don’t have a sense of ethics and justice. If they truly don’t, then forget the judiciary as a problem, because the society itself isn’t going to hold up. So in that way, applying your logic here and under that assumption you are right, why bother with democracy and not trial by combat when people no longer care about acting in good will?
Aren’t jury trials statistically more likely to result in a false coviction than other trials? Given how much presentation, charisma, gender and race can influence a verdict its already about how much the jury like the defendant.
Judges = letter of the law
Jurors = spirit of the law
Surely the judge still has a role, and that is to determine the punishment if found guilty.
The judge’s other main role in a trial with jury is to actually run the proceedings of the trial. Order of operations, keeping the two counsels in line, scheduling, etc.
If it’s a bug, wow. Almost 250 years, and they can’t fix it?
Also, judges are there to make sure both sides play by the rules.
the whole point of a jury is to allow the people to decide the law on individual cases. There are many problems with juries, but complaining about jury nullification just means you don’t like the good parts of having a jury.
There are good parts and bad parts to it. Historically, it was used for good in the form of letting slaves go free. It was also historically used to let lynch mobs go free, which is horrifying.
It’s not 100% good, nor is it 100% bad.
It’s just another part of democracy. “Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.”
Any form of government can produce positive and negative outcomes. Even absolute monarchy had its moments. Once in a very blue moon, you would actually get a “good” king or tyrant, one that really did try to use his power and influence for the greater good. But through trial and error we learned that, on average, democratic systems produce far better outcomes than monarchical or dictatorial ones. No system of government has entirely positive outcomes; they just vary in their ratio of positive to negative.
Agreed, 100%. Democratic juries are absolutely better.
I was mostly addressing this part:
complaining about jury nullification just means you don’t like the good parts of having a jury.
There are some valid cases to complain about it. But the majority of the time, it’s a good thing.
Let’s not forget, maybe, just maybe, this guy is absolutely innocent, was nowhere near the crime at the time, and had nothing to do with it.
And the cops, in their over zeal to catch someone, anyone, found a poor unlucky person who looks like the guy in the crime scene photos and handily fabricated the rest of the physical evidence. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time.
Seriously, a written statement admitting guilt? How likely is that? Anyway, this is what I think is happening. And I doubt the real truth will ever be known, sadly.
Yeah, they were pretty quick to say some random guy in a hoodie was also this same random guy in a hoodie getting coffee. Where is this excellent police work in all the other crimes?
I truly am going to laugh so fucking hard if it is really not him and there is evidence putting him in a completely different location but still near by. They will have spent all this time focusing on the wrong person while the actual killer has made a complete getaway.
“He’s bound to have done something,” Nobby repeated.
In this he was echoing the Patrician’s view of crime and punishment. If there was crime, there should be punishment. If the specific criminal should be involved in the punishment process then this was a happy accident, but if not then any criminal would do, and since everyone was undoubtedly guilty of something, the net result was that, in general terms, justice was done.”
What really moved me to the camp that “Luigi might actually be innocent” was what Luigi said in perhaps his only public statement after being arrested. His lawyer has wisely since told him to shut up, but he did make one shouted public statement to the cameras.
He shouted, “this is extremely out of touch; this is an insult to the intelligence of the American people!”
To me, that doesn’t really sound like the proclamation of a John Brown-type figure. Here’s what John Brown’s words were.
Luigi supposedly planned this elaborate killing down to a T. He even wrote his message on the shell casings. And he wrote a hand-written manifesto. Yet in his one chance so far to speak to the media, did he say, “I apologize for nothing!” Did he say, “Robert Thompson murdered thousands of people; I just brought him justice!” Did he say anything of the sort? Do his words sound like those of a revolutionary, boldly willing to die for his cause?
No. He sounds like a scared kid, caught in over his head, who knows he his being framed and facing potential capital punishment for a crime he didn’t commit. That is how I would sound if I were being charged for those murders. I would probably be shouting something very similar if I were currently being framed for some high-profile murder. It would be an insult to the intelligence of the American people, and I would be rightfully scared and infuriated.
Now, it’s certainly possible that this whole thing was an act. Maybe Luigi just planned that statement to garner public sympathy. IDK. But at least in terms of publicly observable demeanor, he really doesn’t seem like some wild-eyed revolutionary. He seems like a scared kid who knows he’s being framed.
If he is framed, it’s going to prove the cops have no clue how to operate, and repeating this would be pretty easy to accomplish and get away with if the killer had no personal ties to the “victim”
All the other crimes didn’t involve the owner class.
Or a judge’s weed wacker.
But just think of all the Luigi memes that would need to be replaced
I mean, if he actually were convicted, executed, and later proved innocent…
That is one of the few circumstances that an official “Saint Luigi” could literally happen. Despite the memes, it is an understatement to say that it is extremely unlikely that the Catholic church would ever beatify someone for shooting someone else in the back with a silenced pistol. But to be falsely convicted and executed for the crime? That would make Luigi a completely innocent martyr for the cause of the sick and injured. That’s the stuff sainthood is made of.
Ikr? I have a hat!
You’re engaging in “Hopefullism” based on an emotional need. He absolutely did it. They have a preponderance of evidence that he was at the scene and committed the murder. Bordering on irrefutable proof if not outright.
I hope you don’t engage in hopefullism in other areas like climate change, and trump.
https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/12/13/edny-fbi-investigating-nypd-drug-planting-allegations/
https://theintercept.com/2020/03/18/nypd-misconduct-body-cameras-marijuana/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ex-nypd-cop-we-planted-ev_n_1009754
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-throws-man-guilty-plea-224510985.html
It’s a hard truth to accept that police lie, falsify evidence, and frame people. And I don’t even need to make the claim that cops in general plant evidence. I can make that claim for the NYPD specifically.
NYPD has been caught before planting evidence on people. They were caught doing this not in the dark days of Tammany Hall, but literally just within the last 10 years.
The only physical evidence linking Luigi to the crime scene is a bottle or wrapper that was found in a nearby trashcan that had his DNA on it. The shooter was dressed in a similar outfit to Luigi, a generic outfit that hundreds of men in NYC are wearing at any given time of the day or night. It might have been Luigi that placed that trash there. Or it could have even been the real killer. The real killer could have simply waited until someone that looked a bit like him dropped a wrapper in the trash, and then transported it to the scene of the crime. For a killer that seems to have planned things to such a level of intricacy, planting a false trail of evidence really doesn’t seem unlikely.
I could absolutely see the NYPD convincing themselves, “well, we got Luigi’s DNA near the scene. We have a video that appears to be him putting it in the trash can. This is almost certainly our guy, but he’s a crafty one and knew what he was doing. Let’s just fabricate some additional evidence to really seal the deal.”
It’s telling that Luigi is just the kind of target that the NYPD would pick out if they were going to frame someone for this. Yes, he is from a wealthy family, but he’s been completely no-contact with them for the better part of a year. His family was actively looking for him. Luigi personally was not someone of high social status. He appears to have been living as a drifter and living in hostels and homeless shelters for the last year.
If the NYPD was going to try and frame someone, who better than some random homeless queer kid?
Do I think Luigi actually did it? Probably. But we don’t convict people on “probably.” At least with the evidence we’ve seen in public so far, I would vote not guilty for Luigi. I would want to have a lot more info on the provenance of the weapon and manifesto they had on him before I would vote to convict.
For example, here’s what I want to know. Where is Luigi’s workshop? You’re not making that kind of 3D printed gun in a shared bedroom of a youth hostel. You need space, tools, and privacy. And no maker space is going to let you make and prototype guns on their printers. Where exactly did that gun come from? Where is Luigi’s workshop?
They have a preponderance of evidence that he was at the scene and committed the murder.
Youre from the future and have seen it, I presume?
Or are you just believing the cops like an idiot?
Corrupt doesn’t mean stupid. This isnt some nobody weed smoker they collared who nobody cares about. They are well aware that every news org around the world and every eye in this country is going to watching this case with a keen interest. They know that everyone and his brother will be picking over the trial and evidence with a fine tooth comb. They know what’s at stake here. The evidence will be irrefutable.
Action, not misplaced hopefullness helps us.
If the cops were that smart they would’ve found the guy instead of a McDonald’s worker. Saying that just because they arrested someone that they have to be guilty doesn’t sound right either.
Since when did we start defining intelligence as “being everywhere and observing everything?”
It’s not “guilty because he was arrested”, he was arrested due to evidence found that implicated him. Smart or dumb, cops cant be everywhere at all times.
There is too much sunlight and scrutiny on this case for the prosecutors to put forth a patsy. The last thing any prosecutor would want is for this case, especially this case, to turn into an OJ Simpson farce. Rest assured the evidence presented against the defendant will be iron clad. It will involve dna and video captures. It will be very difficult for an objective person to deny he did it.
It is quite possible to approve what he did and at the same time recognise his guilt. You need not be conflicted about that.
I’m not sure if there would be any DNA as the guy was shot, not stabbed. As far as I understand most if not all of what they have is either grainy video snapshots or circumstantial evidence.
You’re right the cops would never lie or plant evidence! No sir! ಠ_ಠ
They would and do all the time. But it would be risky for them to do it in this particular case.
I don’t see your point
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.”
Over the centuries, American juries have nullified cases related to controversial topics like fugitive slave laws, Prohibition and, in recent decades, the war on drugs.
Giggity.
Jury nullification is also why cops who murder people and klansmen get acquitted. It’s not necessarily a good thing, just a quirk of the system.
It’s not some minor quirk of the system. It’s the only reason we have juries at all. If you just wanted a group of 12 people to decide guilt and innocence based on the facts of the case and the letter of the law, you would never hire 12 random untrained nobodies for that purpose. If that is all juries were for, you would have professional juries; being a juror would be a career that required a law degree.
We have juries to protect against corrupt laws. That is the only saving grace of having guilt and innocence be decided by 12 random untrained nobodies. Legislatures can become corrupted and end up criminalizing things that the vast majority of the population does not consider to be wrong. A jury of your peers is the last line of defense against corrupt laws. And this mechanism is the only reason we have juries like we do.
Oh it’s definitely a good thing. But sometimes people are bigots. Fortunately most people dont want to let Klansman get aquited.
He’s not guilty of murder. These people just can’t wrap their head around a jury NOT convicting someone with a lot of evidence but never seem to care about convicting people WITHOUT much evidence. Clutch your pearls all you want, if he is found not guilty there are gonna be more not-guilty people.
He’s not guilty of murder.
And how could you possibly know that?
That’s the point of the article. He’s “not guilty.”
Did you even read the article? Jury nullification has nothing to do with being guilty or not. They even say it in the article.
This article doesn’t talk about whether he is guilty or innocent.
So again, how do you have the slightest clue if this guy is guilty or not? Public “opinion” doesn’t matter here.
What evidence do you have that suggests he is innocent?
I’m not even saying that he’s guilty or innocent. But rather NONE of us have the facts. From where you sit you cannot say he is innocent or guilty. Why people sit here and declare he is guilty or innocent is nonsense and it just shows your bias.
The article is about them doing the right thing and saying he’s not guilty.
All the best to Luigi. Good luck to him.
Not guilty of a crime as stated by a jury of his peers. Has the legal ramification of nullifying laws that a jury says are unjust. It is literally THE last bastion of hope US citizens have for undoing criminal laws.
Well, there’s one more box after jury box.
Please, please, god don’t put me on the jury. I would hate to hold a murderer accountable for getting in the way of an innocent man’s bullets.
I’ve been on a jury in the last little place I lived and you better believe they made sure it was all employed older white people against a young black man. I was the youngest on at 28. What they did to me is made me sit in a room with these, some probably decent, people, while one guy just talked and talked and lied and told fake stories like long discredited shit while a bunch were like oh yeah and I remember.
Fucking makes me sick. Sick at myself that I was such a little shit at that age that I didn’t tell the old prick to shut the fuck up and stop lying. But what really makes me sick was after sitting in a room for hours with these people is the state’s house slave walks in with cops and says we just walked the guy by, showed him who was going to convict him, and he took the plea deal. Fucking gross. Don’t believe your fucking TV this is how most cases go.
Juries also have acquitted some abused women who killed or attacked their husbands, such as Francine Hughes, leading to a wider recognition of what’s known as battered woman syndrome.
“Juries recognized that before the law did,” Conrad said. “The law is slow to change. Sometimes society changes much more quickly than the law, and that is when jury nullification should come in … We don’t need to have 18th-century law governing 21st-century behavior, and the jury can say so.”
New phrase added to the American lexicon in 2025 - battered patient syndrome.
“This is not a case of (Mangione) like throwing blood on this guy as he’s walking into the convention,” Bader said, referring to the scene of the shooting outside an investors’ conference in Midtown Manhattan. “If the jury finds that there’s evidence that he ended this man’s life in cold blood, I don’t see the result being an acquittal because of anger toward the health insurance system.”
Dumbass
I don’t see the result being acquittal because of the anger toward the health insurance system.
Feels like Mr. Bader himself might be a little out of touch with just how bad the health insurance system is.
Its hard for rich people to understand. I have no sympathy for their predicament
