I wish I had enough money to start a nationwide all-media ad campaign explaining jury nullification and telling people that we are not powerless. Not saying that this is jury nullification. It seems the actions did not fit the crime he was accused of. But I think more people need to understand that they are not obligated to convict just because the judge tells them that they are. The whole point of having a trial by a jury of your peers is so that they can block enforcement of unjust laws.
this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2025
191 points (99.0% liked)
News
33723 readers
3320 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
One time when I was on a grand jury, I tried to convince the other jurors that we don't have to send people to jail for marijuana. It's stupid and unjust, and we can just say no. They don't make you show your work. (Yes, on a grand jury the prosecutors can just try again, but it wastes their time.)
Those half-awake bootlickers weren't having it. "We have to do what they told us!" "What, are you a dealer?" "The law is the law. Call your rep is you want to change it."
Maybe an ad campaign would move the needle, but there are a lot of stupid, selfish, people out there ready to lick the boots.
Too many people think that the law=morality
It helps to find a counter-example that the other person will resonate with. And there are plenty to be found just a web search away. At the very least, it might get them to shut up.
"The law is the law. Call your rep is you want to change it."
Just say the law was applied to Jesus and look where that led to.
If they're the least bit reflective of their so-called "faith" then they might join you on this.
Maybe, but they might also say something like "Right. They followed the law and jesus was crucified, saving everyone." There are probably religious arguments to make, but religion (at least christianity in the US) is often just emotional slop.
Maybe an ad campaign would move the needle, but there are a lot of stupid, selfish, people out there ready to lick the boots.
True. But grand juries are different from criminal trials. Federal criminal convictions, as well as state criminal convictions since 2020, require that the jury verdict must be unanimous. That means one hold out can prevent a conviction for something like weed possession.
State courts have required unanimous verdicts since 2020. Before that year, nearly all states followed the federal criminal trial procedure. Two states—Oregon and Louisiana—allowed non-unanimous jury verdicts. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld these types of verdicts in Apodaca v. Oregon (406 U.S. 404) (1972).
In 2020, the Court overturned Apodaca with Ramos v. Louisiana (140 U.S. 1390). The Court reasoned that a deeper historical examination of the criminal justice system revealed an intentional bias against some jurors. The non-unanimous verdict helped ensure guilty verdicts for African Americans by eliminating one or two African American "not-guilty" votes (Justice Kavanaugh concurrence at 1418).
Absolutely.
Of course they aquitted him. The prosecutor was an idiot for even trying to shoehorn a federal theft of government property onto him. It cannot be theft if you have no intent to permanently deprive. The statute:
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or
Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—
Shit is a total own goal. Dude moved it. Wasn't conversion(which is what convey in the statute is referring to). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morissette_v._United_States on that exact statute for why this was always going to fail.