@tawtovo I presented it in a positive light because I know that people too often look at criminal law policies from the narrow viewpoint of how it effects Trump. Don't do that. It's how bad policies are made.
@tawtovo You are still thinking of jury nullification policy in terns of the result you want to see in Trump's trial.
Suppose they are sitting a jury to accuse a woman you know of murder becuase she had a questionable miscarriage in a state that says abortion is murder.
"This will help someone I dislike" is not the way to evaluate a policy.
I am not saying jury nullification is good. I am saying it has served as a protection against a tyranniacl government.
@tawtovo Adding: The point is generally to eliminate bias. They can also make sure the jurors will follow instructions. Jurors also take an oath.
Jury nullification happens generaly when juries just can't, in good faith, apply the law.
It's always an imperfect process but looking for potential bias is generally the idea, which goes together, right? If someone is biased they are unlikely to apply the law.
When I received a case on appeal, the record would hundreds, or thousands, of pages in length. I would spend about a week reading, combing for possible issues, then research the issues and decide.
@Teri_Kanefield says we don't need legal pundits, and at first I thought, of course we need someone who understands how the legal system works and can tell us what's what. But then she wrote
"...lawyers confuse people. Confused people then turn to lawyers for explanations."
And I realized that if pundits quit saying the legal system was corrupt, we wouldn't keep asking, "is this corrupt behavior?" We would just ... follow what happens and see how it turns out.
It's a follow up from last week, answering some of the questions and comments I got.
In response to people telling me that I am overestimating the ability of people to decode legal news, I attempt to prove this hypothesis:
If people stop listening to legal pundits speculating, they wouldn’t feel confused and they wouldn’t think they need help from lawyers decoding the news.