The defense has the right to pick half the jury - and defense lawyers are usually very serious about defending their clients and getting the best possible outcome. They’re going to pick the most favorable jurists they can.
IMO he got over charged and they state is gonna learn the hard way that their strategy of making an example of him will backfire.
Please see my reply to the other comment - you’re assuming the pool of jurors contains enough people that would consider nullification. As far as I’m aware, the defense has no influence on this pool itself. So how do you know that the jurors the defense can choose from are actually randomly selected?
It’s pretty much a given that the state knows your opinion on jury nullification if you’ve ever publicly posted about it. Hell, based on the Snowden leaks there’s a good chance they know it if you’ve ever mentioned it over e.g. the telephone. How can you be sure that this knowledge isn’t used to bias the jury pool?
No, I think I understand it well enough to also understand that the system isn’t perfect.
For example, the same system that is trying to get him charged is also responsible for producing the jury pool. Coincidentally, the same system regularly buys data about its citizens from big tech companies, like social media. The same social media on which plenty of people publicly commented on the case.
Unless the defense is literally involved in every step of the process (starting from voter registration), there’s no way to be sure that the jury pool is actually unbiased.
Now, hopefully I’m wrong about this, and you can show me specifically how we can be absolutely sure that the jury pool is completely unbiased. But I don’t think that you’ll be able to do so without implicitly relying on the same system that is being defended against.
None of these systems interact in an easy enough way to rig this without involving soo many people. Which means it won’t be secret enough to get away with.
Please be more specific. Roughly how many people do you expect would, at the very least, have to be involved?
I’d say you could get away with ~10 people (say 2 responsible along the actual process of producing/transporting the jury pool data, and 4x as many people that could randomly check). That’s not counting the planning etc. which I think if fair to leave out (as plenty of bad shit has been planned by governments around the world without the planners revealing it).
And I think there are very realistic ways to make sure 10 (or even 20) people shut up - you can always pay well enough while also threatening their loved ones in case anything gets out.
If you assume the number is higher, please show me where the process is documented. Again, I’d love to be wrong, but “trust me bro” isn’t enough. If you want a specific part of the process to focus on, I assume there’s a bottleneck in the transport & verification. So let’s say the data is swapped “in transport” (so e.g. if physically moved it’s changed on the storage medium itself, or if it’s digitally transported it’s changed through MITM/modified receiving side). How many people audit the systems involved, and how many people from either side actually verify the data?
That’s assuming they don’t make the death-penalty terrorism charge stick… which they will in a heartbeat.
Have you heard of this one neat trick (jury nullification) that lawyers hate?
I haven’t heard about it at all. Not a once. I would never talk about it during a jury selection process either.
I don’t see them letting it come to that. They’ll pick jury members of which they are 100% sure they won’t do jury nullification.
Remember, the whole system is behind getting him charged.
Well the whole system only gets to pick half the jury
Do you really think there’s no way for the combined power of the state & capital to influence jury selection? That feels like a very naive take.
The defense has the right to pick half the jury - and defense lawyers are usually very serious about defending their clients and getting the best possible outcome. They’re going to pick the most favorable jurists they can.
IMO he got over charged and they state is gonna learn the hard way that their strategy of making an example of him will backfire.
Please see my reply to the other comment - you’re assuming the pool of jurors contains enough people that would consider nullification. As far as I’m aware, the defense has no influence on this pool itself. So how do you know that the jurors the defense can choose from are actually randomly selected?
It’s pretty much a given that the state knows your opinion on jury nullification if you’ve ever publicly posted about it. Hell, based on the Snowden leaks there’s a good chance they know it if you’ve ever mentioned it over e.g. the telephone. How can you be sure that this knowledge isn’t used to bias the jury pool?
I saw your other comment after I made this one. You bring up valid points. I think we should throw the whole country out and start over personally.
It sounds like you don’t understand how jury selection works.
No, I think I understand it well enough to also understand that the system isn’t perfect.
For example, the same system that is trying to get him charged is also responsible for producing the jury pool. Coincidentally, the same system regularly buys data about its citizens from big tech companies, like social media. The same social media on which plenty of people publicly commented on the case.
Unless the defense is literally involved in every step of the process (starting from voter registration), there’s no way to be sure that the jury pool is actually unbiased.
Now, hopefully I’m wrong about this, and you can show me specifically how we can be absolutely sure that the jury pool is completely unbiased. But I don’t think that you’ll be able to do so without implicitly relying on the same system that is being defended against.
None of these systems interact in an easy enough way to rig this without involving soo many people. Which means it won’t be secret enough to get away with.
Oh, you don’t have any arguments beyond these platitudes? How unexpected ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Please be more specific. Roughly how many people do you expect would, at the very least, have to be involved?
I’d say you could get away with ~10 people (say 2 responsible along the actual process of producing/transporting the jury pool data, and 4x as many people that could randomly check). That’s not counting the planning etc. which I think if fair to leave out (as plenty of bad shit has been planned by governments around the world without the planners revealing it).
And I think there are very realistic ways to make sure 10 (or even 20) people shut up - you can always pay well enough while also threatening their loved ones in case anything gets out.
If you assume the number is higher, please show me where the process is documented. Again, I’d love to be wrong, but “trust me bro” isn’t enough. If you want a specific part of the process to focus on, I assume there’s a bottleneck in the transport & verification. So let’s say the data is swapped “in transport” (so e.g. if physically moved it’s changed on the storage medium itself, or if it’s digitally transported it’s changed through MITM/modified receiving side). How many people audit the systems involved, and how many people from either side actually verify the data?
I’m sure defense lawyers love it. Cops and cop lawyers sure hate it though.
The minions of the wealthy hate anything that impedes them from executing the will of their masters.
That not a disqualifier though
Being dead might make it challenging…
Being brain dead doesn’t seem to be an hindrance.
Nah, death row inmates can live for decades
True, but more inmates were executed during Trump’s last term than are currently on death row.
Well, considering there are only three on death row right now, that doesn’t sound too bad.
oh no oh fuck
He’s got enough money to drag that out for years like everyone else does