SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The new, temporary FBI Director Andrew G. McCabe says that employees loved Comey:
Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe Thursday rejected assertions by the White House that FBI employees had lost faith in James Comey and that the bureau's probe into Russian election meddling was one of its most minor concerns. "I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity," McCabe told members of the Senate intelligence committee. He said Comey, who was fired by President Donald Trump on Tuesday, enjoyed "broad support within the FBI and still does to this day." He added, "The majority, the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep, positive connection to Director Comey."
Furthermore, he will inform the Senate of any interference with the Russia investigation:
Acting FBI director Andrew McCabe vowed Thursday that he would tell the Senate Intelligence Committee if the White House tried to interfere with the bureau's probe of possible coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 presidential election — though he asserted that there had "been no effort to impede our investigation to date."
Meanwhile, President Trump has undermined the White House's messaging on Comey's firing, saying that he planned to fire "showboat" and "grandstander" James Comey regardless of any recommendation from Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein. The President also insists that he is not under FBI investigation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday May 12 2017, @06:16PM (4 children)
So let's say, for the sake of argument, that a juror disagreed in theory with the law being used to charge somebody with a crime. But they also hate the defendant's guts for reasons which have nothing to do with the evidence of the crime presented in the courtroom (e.g. the defendant is a neo-Nazi and the juror is Jewish). Do you seriously think that juror is likely to nullify on that case?
Obviously, it's not a perfect system, but that's why (in theory) there are 12 jurors, not one. So one juror that hates the defendant's guts might rule guilty even though they disagree with that law, but maybe one of the other 11 will refuse. Jury decisions have to be unanimous so a hung jury will result, and a new trial will be required. And again, it isn't a perfect system; the whole reason for nullification is because the government is broken and allowed a bad law to pass (or for a situation to occur where it'd be a travesty of justice for someone to be convicted under the law because it's an exceptional case, or the law is too broad, etc.). So the alternative is to just not have nullification and have no chance at all for the defendant to escape punishment, rather than a small chance.
And furthermore, one of the most prominent instances where jury nullification happened on a regular basis was in those rare cases where lynchings of black people ever made it into court. ... In other words, the jury was nullifying not because they disagreed with the existence of laws against murder, but because they decided that this particular murder was just fine and dandy.
Yep, you're now showing why juries in general are a bad idea. It's just like democratic government: it seems like a good idea in theory, but in practice it just doesn't work out, as proven by the recent Presidential election. Democratic republican forms of government only work when you have a well-educated citizenry; same most likely goes for juries. But we have uneducated morons for citizens, and our juries are even worse because they're intentionally selected to be the most idiotic and emotionally-driven members of society. There's a reason that European nations got rid of juries ages ago.
The right way of dealing with a law you disagree with is to get your legislative representatives to change it
Sounds good in theory, but doesn't work in practice. Are you a lobbyist for an organization with millions or billions of dollars in assets and able to make generous campaign contributions to get your voice heard by a congressperson? No? Then you're not going to get your legislative representative to even listen to you, much less work hard to change the law.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday May 12 2017, @07:50PM (3 children)
Jury decisions have to be unanimous
Well, no, not always.
In state courts, whether a jury needs to be unanimous depends on the state and the type of trial. For criminal trials, [most states require] the jury to produce a unanimous verdict [, but for] civil trials, almost one-third of states only require a majority for a verdict. Some states require a majority if the money at issue in the trial is below a certain amount, and a unanimous verdict all other times.
- Findlaw [findlaw.com]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday May 12 2017, @08:02PM (2 children)
Well, we're talking about jury nullification here, which is something that's only a real factor with criminal trials.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday May 12 2017, @10:44PM
Yeah that's why I thought someone (even if not you personally) might want to know that not all states require all the jurors to agree.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday May 13 2017, @02:05AM
Jury nullification can happen in civil trials, though it's usually discussed in relationship to criminal penalties. Nevertheless, there are legal standards for liability, negligence, etc. that apply to civil actions. It's possible for a jury to believe that a defendant is actually liable, etc. according to the technical legal standard but decide in favor of the defendant nonetheless because they believe the legal standard is unfair in the present case.