“Taser” Shooting Cop May Be Seeking Jury Nullification

Q3 2021 hedge fund letters, conferences and moreAlkeon Slumps On Short Losses, Bets On Tech AI RevolutionAlkeon Growth Partners returned -5.84% web of all fees and expenditures in the 3rd quarter of 2021. Q3 2021 hedge fund letters, conferences and more According to a copy of the companys third-quarter upgrade, which ValueWalk has actually been able to review, the equity long/short fund has returned -10.6% overall this year as its brief book Read MoreTaser Shooting Cop Takes A Stand

baoway/ Pixabay
” Taser” Shooting Cop May Be Seeking Jury Nullification; Prosecution Case So Strong, Sympathy May Be Potters Only Defense
[soros] Q3 2021 hedge fund letters, conferences and moreAlkeon Slumps On Short Losses, Bets On Tech AI RevolutionAlkeon Growth Partners returned -5.84% internet of all fees and expenditures in the third quarter of 2021. Q3 2021 hedge fund letters, conferences and more According to a copy of the firms third-quarter upgrade, which ValueWalk has actually been able to examine, the equity long/short fund has returned -10.6% overall this year as its brief book Read MoreTaser Shooting Cop Takes A Stand
WASHINGTON, D, C (December 17, 2021)– Officer Kim Potter, accused of first- and second-degree murder for shooting a suspect with her handgun, obviously believing she was holding her Taser, has taken the stand in her own defense.
Affirming is almost always a risky relocation for an offender given that it subjects her to withering cross examination, says public interest law teacher John Banzhaf, who has successfully predicted the outcome in lots of shooting cases.
However here, because the evidence of regret is so strong, and there is little if anything she can state to lawfully rebut claims that she acted recklessly in handling her firearm (very first degree manslaughter) or was culpably irresponsible in developing an unreasonable danger (2nd degree manslaughter), she may be attempting to hope and encourage to set off jury nullification, or at least juror nullification.
Jury Nullification
” Jury nullification,” a constitutional right recognized and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, occurs when the jurors, regardless of concluding beyond a sensible doubt that an offender has actually broken the criminal law as described to them by the judge, nevertheless all votes “innocent.”
Jurors might do this because they believe that the law is unreasonable or unfair, either in general or as applied in a specific situation, to send some sort of message to district attorneys and/or to the basic public, because a conviction in a specific circumstance may appear unjustified or unfair for some reason, to sign up strong discontent with the conduct of the district attorney, due to the fact that of public pressure for– or issue about– a particular decision, etc.
In this case jurors could decline to vote for a conviction, regardless of the strength of the evidence, simply out of compassion for an accused who jurors might feel has actually already suffered enough from her deep regret and strong sensations of guilt; compassion which she can evoke by a persuading appearance on the witness stand.
Some clear examples of juror nullification include the earlier aversion of numerous Northern juries to found guilty persons proven to have helped runaway slaves to leave, or lots of Southern juries which declined to convict White individuals charged with criminal offenses against Blacks.
More Examples
More recent examples where compassion probably played a significant role was a jurys finding Lorena Bobbitt not guilty of all criminal charges for undoubtedly cutting off her spouses penis, or another where a jury declined to convict a females of prohibited ownership of a switch blade knife after she was arrested for the criminal activity just after she was required to use it to protect herself from an attempted rape.
” Juror nullification” (comparable to “jury nullification”) takes place when a juror exercises his constitutionally protected right to refuse to vote guilty even when he is convinced of a defendants regret– which might take place for all of the same reasons.
, if just one juror votes not guilty even while believing that Potters guilt has been shown– juror nullification– the outcome is a mistrial.. If all jurors– consisting of some exercising their constitutional right of jury nullification– vote innocent, the offender goes free and there is no appeal.
While Potters agreeing to affirm puts her at threat of a withering cross examination, she might create sufficient compassion with a proving of frustrating regret and regret to trigger a not guilty verdict due to jury nullification, or at really least a mistrial if one juror is adequately moved to refuse to convict her of either charge, recommends the law teacher.
Updated on Dec 17, 2021, 3:39 pm

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.