Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
expansions and clarifications
Changed line(s) 12,14 (click to see context) from:
Occasionally, a surprise acquittal can be due to a phenomenon known as "jury nullification", in which the jurors return a "not guilty" verdict even though the prosecution has in fact proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is usually because the jury feels that extenuating circumstances justify the crime, or occasionally because they feel the law is unfairly applied or simply ''wrong''. There are two sides to this: A) the US legal system says that it is not the jury's place to decide what the law ''should'' be, but to come to a conclusion as to whether the law ''as it is currently written'' has or has not been broken. B) Nevertheless, jury nullification is legal in the US. A criminal court can't insist on a guilty verdict, a jury's verdict of acquittal can't be appealed, and jurors can't be punished for a verdict. [[note]]There are circumstances where a judge can set aside an acquittal, but it's extremely rare and limited to cases of juror misconduct; the result is a mistrial, not a guilty verdict, which means the defendant has to be tried again, or the case is dropped.[[/note]]
to:
Occasionally, a surprise acquittal can be due to a phenomenon known as "jury nullification", in which the jurors return a "not guilty" verdict even though the prosecution has in fact proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is usually because the jury feels that extenuating circumstances justify the crime, because they are prejudiced against the victim, or occasionally because they feel the law is unfairly applied or simply ''wrong''. There are two sides to this: A) the US legal system says that it is not the jury's place to decide what the law ''should'' be, but to come to a conclusion as to whether the law ''as it is currently written'' has or has not been broken. B) Nevertheless, jury nullification is legal in the US. A criminal court can't insist on a guilty verdict, a jury's verdict of acquittal can't be appealed, appealed because of the double-jeopardy rule, and jurors can't be punished for a verdict. [[note]]There are circumstances where a judge can set aside an acquittal, but it's extremely rare and limited to cases of juror misconduct; the result is a mistrial, not a guilty verdict, which means the defendant has to be tried again, or the case is dropped.[[/note]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12,14 (click to see context) from:
Occasionally, a surprise acquittal can be due to a phenomenon known as "jury nullification", in which the jurors return a "not guilty" verdict even though the prosecution has in fact proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is usually because the jury feels that extenuating circumstances justify the crime, or occasionally because they feel the law is unfairly applied or simply ''wrong''. There are two sides to this: A) the US legal system says that it is not the jury's place to decide what the law ''should'' be, but to come to a conclusion as to whether the law ''as it is currently written'' has or has not been broken. B) Nevertheless, jury nullification is legal in the US. A criminal court can't insist on a guilty verdict, an acquittal can't be appealed, and jurors can't be punished for a verdict. [[note]]There are circumstances where a judge can set aside an acquittal, but it's extremely rare and limited to cases of juror misconduct; the result is a mistrial, not a guilty verdict, which means the defendant has to be tried again, or the case is dropped.[[/note]]
to:
Occasionally, a surprise acquittal can be due to a phenomenon known as "jury nullification", in which the jurors return a "not guilty" verdict even though the prosecution has in fact proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is usually because the jury feels that extenuating circumstances justify the crime, or occasionally because they feel the law is unfairly applied or simply ''wrong''. There are two sides to this: A) the US legal system says that it is not the jury's place to decide what the law ''should'' be, but to come to a conclusion as to whether the law ''as it is currently written'' has or has not been broken. B) Nevertheless, jury nullification is legal in the US. A criminal court can't insist on a guilty verdict, an a jury's verdict of acquittal can't be appealed, and jurors can't be punished for a verdict. [[note]]There are circumstances where a judge can set aside an acquittal, but it's extremely rare and limited to cases of juror misconduct; the result is a mistrial, not a guilty verdict, which means the defendant has to be tried again, or the case is dropped.[[/note]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 69 (click to see context) from:
to:
* Subverted in ''WesternAnimation/HarveyBirdmanAttorneyAtLaw'' When the titular character is on trial for a potential murder, the jury is the one to initially declare him not guilty, to even their own surprise, but Judge Mentok [[HangingJudge ignores this and sentences him anyway]]. [[spoiler: This is because the whole situation was just an elaborate setup to give Harvey a surprise birthday party, including all but one part of everything leading up to his apparent execution.]]
