jury nullification and impeachment

[Adolf_Twitler]

basically the senators can do what they want.

jury findings are unassailable on any legal basis.

The Republican Senators can walk their own political planks or they can refuse to follow Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell's death wish!!

When Congress started to investigate Nixon, the Republicans were 100% deaf, dumb, and blind to the evidence- UNTIL THEY SUDDENLY WEREN'T!

And just like in this case, all it takes is one snowball to start rolling, and suddenly it becomes an avalanche!

STAY TUNED- AS YOU WON'T WANT TO MISS IT!

[Ralph]

actually that's not true......there is this thing called judgment notwithstanding the verdict.......basically a judge can void an idiotic jury decision.......

federal courts have a parallel.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgme...anding_verdict

Actually in a Senate impeachment trial......the supreme court justice is but a figure head, all it takes to override the bench is a simple majority. The role of the SCOTUS Judge is established by the Senate Rules. In the case of presiding over an impeachment trial of a sitting POTUS.....the judges role is to resolve "conflicts of interest".

What does the constitution declare about the role of the senate and the presiding scotus judge? 1. The "SENATE" (not the supreme court) shall have the "SOLE" power to try all impeachments.

2. When sitting as a court of impeachment, Senators shall be on oath or affirmation ( making sure only the TRUTH is entered into the record). 3. Conviction by Senate trial requires 2/3 majority support.

4. When a POTUS is accused, the Supreme Court Justice shall preside.

Many individuals read things into point number (4) that simply is not supported by the constitutional text. Error No. 1 some errantly conclude that since a SCOTUS JUDGE is presiding over the trial, the impeachment tribunal is just like a normal court room trial and Error No. 2.....the judges role is just like the role any judge has in a normal court room sitting.


Reality: The judge is sitting or presiding for one reason......to resolve any legal conflicts of interest, in this role the judge has no more authority than does the VP.....or the vote that breaks any tie should it happen.

The judges role is "delimited" (having borders or boundaries) by the SENATE RULES. In other words the judges role is no more than that of a Sgt. at Arms in any organization...he makes sure the Senate Rules are enforced in an honorable manner as per the agreed upon terms thereof.

The judge is duty bound and limited by the Senate Rules. In the end.....a senate vote can and does have the last word in a senate impeachment tribunal.

[cancel2 2022]

All smoke and mirrors!
Trump's guilty as Hell!
The only thing that needs decided is does the Senate Republicans have the guts to do their job,and convict this piece of shit Trump.

Maybe should call you Meissen in future, you're as fragile as porcelain!

[PostmodernProphet]

not relevant. aleman was acquitted on a bench trial by a corrupt judge. a jury didn't acquit him.

there is no law prohibiting the setting aside the verdict of a corrupt jury........it is just less likely an entire jury could be corrupted than that a single judge could....

[PostmodernProphet]

A mistrial with jeopardy attached is as good as an acquittal. It is almost impossible to not have jeopardy attached by an acquittal. If a jury decides to acquit a blatantly guilty person, there is nothing the judge or anyone else can do.

I love the way you admit it is "almost" impossible while claiming there is nothing anyone can do........there simply nothing that prevents a judge from setting aside a jury verdict of acquittal if there is a clear case of jury corruption.......

[PostmodernProphet]

Jury nullification is the idea that the law should not apply to SOME people.

only if you fuck up the definition..........jury nullification properly is the idea that justice should be accomplished..........if it is obvious that the jury has done something which is unjust, fix it.......

[PostmodernProphet]

The Republican Senators can walk their own political planks or they can refuse to follow Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell's death wish!!

or they can recognize the demmycunts have fucked everything up for the last three years and fix it........

[SmarterthanYou]

there is no law prohibiting the setting aside the verdict of a corrupt jury........it is just less likely an entire jury could be corrupted than that a single judge could....

but what you are describing is not the act of a judge overturning a jury acquittal and declaring a 'guilty' decision. Setting aside a unlawful or corrupt verdict is almost the same as a mistrial. All it does is render the trial moot and leaves the state to decide whether to have another trial.

[SmarterthanYou]

Jury nullification is the idea that the law should not apply to SOME people. When people think the law should not apply, they try to get the law removed for everyone.

Think of the civil rights movement. They specifically violated segregation laws to force them to be changed. They were many times offered to have the laws ignored in their specific case, not to make an issue of it, but they wanted to make an issue of it.

the same could be said of the fugitive slave acts, or marijuana prohibitions, or illegal immigrant cases.............if a jury thinks a law is being used unfairly or to excessively punish someone on trial, they can judge that law as well as the facts, OR, in other cases if a law is CLEARLY unconstitutional, say like not staying in a 'free speech area'..........nullification can be used.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

No, but I am against the two legal standards argument. The Alt Right argues that there should be two (or more) legal standards, one for white "Christian" conservative men, and another for everyone else. White "Christian" conservative men can get high on drugs and murder someone, and it is not murder. Everyone else gets prosecuted for murder even if they were no where near the scene.

can I get some more information on the two legal standards stuff? a link is fine.

[PostmodernProphet]

but what you are describing is not the act of a judge overturning a jury acquittal and declaring a 'guilty' decision. All it does is render the trial moot and leaves the state to decide whether to have another trial.

????.....that is exactly what I am describing.....in fact, it is literally what I said......the claim was that there was nothing that could be done if a jury acquitted.......there is.......

[SmarterthanYou]

????.....that is exactly what I am describing.....in fact, it is literally what I said......the claim was that there was nothing that could be done if a jury acquitted.......there is.......

your claim isn't based on the sole premise of an acquittal. you're referring to misconduct by a juror, not a simple acquittal.