It’s actually pretty insane that this has happened, what, twice now in only a few weeks, both cases related to the fed occupations. I can’t even remember the last time an acquittal like this happened before that, though I don’t follow this stuff closely. I think OJ is the last one I’m aware of but that’s obviously a totally different situation. I was definitely expecting s different outcome, but good for him. I remember in the video they called him “Superman”, lol. I guess so!
My education is in the works. Is this actually an example of jury nullification? Like, what he did was actually illegal, but the jury presumably, thought the law was unjust? Or is throwing a sandwich at ICE just not illegal?
It is, by the letter of the law, assault (and battery, if that’s a separate thing there). But the jury is not bound in any way as to whether they find a defendant guilty or not guilty.
Not a lawyer but my reading of it is that, in other context, this fact pattern could theoretically lead to a conviction. It is hard to imagine a sandwich causing actual harm, though, so it is probably unethical to have even brought charges knowing it is such bullshit.
Continuing the great American tradition of jury nullification
here’s hoping Luigi and Tyler get off too for the same reason.
It’s actually pretty insane that this has happened, what, twice now in only a few weeks, both cases related to the fed occupations. I can’t even remember the last time an acquittal like this happened before that, though I don’t follow this stuff closely. I think OJ is the last one I’m aware of but that’s obviously a totally different situation. I was definitely expecting s different outcome, but good for him. I remember in the video they called him “Superman”, lol. I guess so!
My education is in the works. Is this actually an example of jury nullification? Like, what he did was actually illegal, but the jury presumably, thought the law was unjust? Or is throwing a sandwich at ICE just not illegal?
It is, by the letter of the law, assault (and battery, if that’s a separate thing there). But the jury is not bound in any way as to whether they find a defendant guilty or not guilty.
He threw an object in hostility at a (supposed) federal employee, which could be assault. Jury said no, because they can.
Not a lawyer but my reading of it is that, in other context, this fact pattern could theoretically lead to a conviction. It is hard to imagine a sandwich causing actual harm, though, so it is probably unethical to have even brought charges knowing it is such bullshit.