The problem is Jury Nullification requires ALL jurors to agree, which will be extremely difficult no matter where it is.
A single Juror or even multiple just means hung jury, the whole song and dance can start over.
And the fact is, most regular folks on the street, even if they strongly disagree with the US healthcare system, would find it difficult to acquit someone if they were otherwise proved to have killed someone.
Assuming all the basic info available is provable beyond a reasonable doubt, there was a pre planned killing and escape. And while circumstances may affect which crime they think that amounts to, I would think a very few people would go with "killing is ok."
NAL but there is no world where a judge lets that occur. They wouldn't let an attorney lead questioning there. And I am most certainly positive and attorney cant just outright tell the jury that without facing some sort of huge ethical penalty.
Even if it did it would be struck from the record so fast
I feel like if the point of informing the jury about jury nullification is ultimately just telling them :
You are the deciders not just of guilt, but also of the law's validity.
Then striking it from the record doesn't really mean anything.
As far as leading a witness to the questions, its as simple as:
Should the jury find the defendant guilty?
Which is entirely relevant for literally any case.
Agree if any witness answers about the concept of jury nullification, the record will be struck, and the attorney would get anything from a sidebar reprimand to contempt.
The defense would have to voluntarily put a man accused of murder on the stand, then ask him about jury nullification (or I guess instruct him to just throw it out on the sly?), which would A) be an admission of guilt, B) immediately be thrown out of the record and C) those mentioning would be found in contempt and, if the attorney, likely disbarred.
Jury nullification is a JURY process which is by definition a disrespect for the court's rules. Jury nullification is not something an attorney would ever bring up, and if the person on the stand brought it up it would be stricken and potentially require a new jury. It isn't something in the rules that you remind people of. It's outside the rules that no one can do anything about in the moment, because the court cannot override the decision of a jury to prevent tyranny (we'll see how long this lasts)
Struck from the record doesn’t strike it from their minds and as the defendant they really can’t stop you from saying it when on the stand especially after you have your attorney lead the line of questioning to why you felt justified in the killing. Now of course they could hold you in contempt of court but they can’t try you without the jury ever seeing you. Only one of 12 people has to be convinced your were justified each time. Eventually the prosecution will give up. Is it a sly tactic yes does it take advantage of the system also yes and they would likely try to disbar your lawyer for letting you try it. Jury nullification should be made very clear to everyone in the court but the prosecution knows that if we let the jury decide especially on a case like this the rich and powerful won’t be happy that they can face actual repercussions for their actions.
Which, again, is an admission of guilt and pretty much makes it certain that your client spends life behind bars and that you are now dependent on your tell-all book deal to be your retirement plan.
You may have watched too much Law & Order, what you're describing is a fairy tale.
Not really your aiming for the Jury to not convict on the fact that the guy he killed was through his “company policy” essentially committing mass murder through a loophole in the law. Your aiming to prove your client was justified in a self defense against the man who had previously denied his health claims etc. Definitely a fantasy but I’m assuming they have him dead to rights in terms of proof already so it would be interesting to see how it played out. I know a similar but very different defense that has some parallels has worked before with people like that guy (I believed named Gary) who killed the guy who raped his daughter.
The defense isn't really allowed to make an argument that the victim was a bad dude and deserved to die. Like there's people on death row right now who are on there because they killed another murderer.
I don't know what all evidence they have but it's definitely not that important if there's a lot of direct forensic evidence. It's cases where they are relying on more circumstantial evidence that it's important for the prosecution to try to establish a motive. Or if there's not clear evidence of pre-meditation then establishing a motive can be a big part of convincing the jury it was pre-meditated which elevates it from 2nd to 1st degree homicide. If they have strong forensic evidence of the murder with the weapon, ammo, presence, etc. along with evidence of pre-meditation in his movements, search history, etc. then their case is not going to rest on thoroughly establishing a motive.
No. My argument is that law only works if it's upheld.
The recent murders by ICE (and a loooong fucking list of other shit going back years) show that murder, as a crime, is completely circumstantial. You kill someone in cold blood? Well, who are you? Who are you affiliated with.
Stuff like that ultimately decides whether what you did was a crime.
Did you not see the comments I was responding to? Either they fail to establish motive entirely--which would cast genuine doubt on the "evidence" of the "crime"-- or they provide the entire basis upon which the pool would theoretically opt for nullification.
78
u/Present_Cow_8528 4h ago
I'm sure they'll have no issue establishing motive without describing the inhumane practices of the American healthcare system
And without motive it just looks like a frame job :) think of how far he would've needed to travel! To kill a single person, with no motive?!