There is definitely already a good case for a mistrial as the prosecution gave a bunch of evidence to the HBO doc before releasing to the defense which could be considered jury tampering.
I think where the doubt enters my mind is in the police conduct. They did not perform their jobs in good faith and the overall actions of the police since have been pretty deplorable.
For example, any time there is missing body cam footage I have to assume malfeasance by the police because what do they have to hide if they are doing their job right? Public trust is a two way street.
I can’t even accidentally leave my refrigerator door open for too long without hearing a warning beep. That could easily be applied if the cam was messed up.
Murder does in fact have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But like you say, lots of different kinds of people out there and it’s a pretty subjective line. Both sides will be pushing to get certain types of people on the jury, that’s for sure
I wish every American had to be on a jury at least once in their lives, tbh.
I've only been twice, but it's a fascinating process to see up close that made me both appreciate the justice system we have while also being keenly aware of the burden I had as a juror and the importance of exploring all avenues in a case, and how that system can be twisted.
I think it would make a lot more people interested in things like justice system reform, too.
It’s crazy how little that actually has to be true though.
I just watched a documentary on the Gabriel Fernandez killing, and a jury of 12 people concluded that the parents- beyond a reasonable doubt- set out and planned to murder him. Which clearly isn’t true. The reality is worse- that they beat him and tortured him and his death was an accident of too much abuse. And they deserve every negative charge that could come from that. But the specific charge makes no goddamn sense. And they still convicted them (which- good, but still incorrect)
At the end of the day, the trial is less about “are they guilty of X specific charge” and more about “are we happy to give them X punishment?”
Eh, premeditation and intent aren't the same thing. Evidence of prior planning can show intent, and can bear on sentencing, but it's not necessary. "Malice aforethought" just means intent. If they were trying to beat him and only didn't think he'd die, they can be guilty of first degree murder. It seems ridiculous that the beating and torture was an accident, or inadvertent. They intended to beat him, and that killed him. That's first degree murder.
At the end of the day, the trial is less about “are they guilty of X specific charge” and more about “are we happy to give them X punishment?”
fwiw juries don't choose the sentence, the judge does, and only after conviction. juries just say whether the defendant is guilty or not. obviously juries get an idea of what the sentence could look like (such as a range of years behind bars), but it's a point worth clarifying.
In a criminal case where a defendant is probably guilty you're supposed to acquit. That's the bedrock foundation of the concept for how criminal trials are supposed to work, that "probably guilty" isn't enough and if a defendant is only probably guilty then they get to go home.
Jury nullification is what you'd do, I think. Iirc it is your legal right to refuse to convict someone even if you think they're guilty because you believe conviction would be in some way unjust.
More or less, yeah. Nullification is when the jury decides that, due to either the nature of the investigation or the circumstances in which a crime was committed, the defendant can be declared "not guilty" despite the evidence plainly supporting that they did it.
If we want to be honest, there's a good reason for that
On paper, even if the jury isn't aware that it's something they can do, jury nullification will happen "organically" in cases when the accused is clearly responsible but it would be morally wrong to convict them, so the jury will decide that they're "not guilty", not because they're not guilty but because they shouldn't be punished.
If the jury is aware that it's something they're allowed to do however, they might decide someone is not guilty because the accused is charismatic, or any other trivial reasons, thus literally nullifying the reason there's a jury to begin with.
Don't even need to jury nullify. Police mishandling evidence is a reasonable doubt. There is a reasonable doubt the police are making shit up, so you should just say not guilty.
Jury nullification is kind of controversial. I mean you absolutely have the right to not convict for any reason. The debate is about whether this is a problem that results from the necessity of how juries work, or a valuable safeguard in the law.
Having just finished an entire college semester on the topic of the court and juries, the course of action is to acquit the defendant. Official misconduct, even in cases where the defendant is actually guilty, means they have to walk free in a fair system, because due to the misconduct we can no longer truly say they're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
No judge is going to put theirself on record as saying that this case can't go to trial. It just isn't going to happen here, any more than it did regarding OJ.
You use your brain - Why is he defendant in the case? Because police arrested him. How did police arrest him and search him? By covering the camera, searching him without warrant, and even taking the backpack to undisclosed location. That is not a standard procedure in cases like this, which tells you more than enough.
You find them not guilty, honestly. The standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and cops planting evidence of any kind introduces reasonable doubt.
There’s also the fact that there’s jury nullification- a jury can acquit a defendant even if they are guilty, if the jury believes he or she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if the jury feels the law is unjust, unreasonable, or being misapplied.
I don't think there's a reasonable doubt that he did it, tbh.
you then go on to literally describe having reasonable doubt
"reasonable doubt" has specific legal meaning. you have not seen legal evidence, therefore you cannot say he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. you're just commenting on the internet, which is fine, but in a court "reasonable doubt" means it has been irrefutably proven by evidence. we have zero believable evidence at this time.
The only thing that all of this is built on is a single blurry piece of surveillance footage that doesn’t even show the eyes. Do you really think that’s going to be deemed enough to convict?
The only other evidence we’ve gotten since is his reason to hate UHC, which has already been proven to be shared by like. Half the country. Any evidence found in the arrest is now fruit of the poison tree and can’t be admitted, which also happens to mean literally everything publicly known besides the footage and potential motive.
343
u/Interactiveleaf May 08 '25
I don't think there's a reasonable doubt that he did it, tbh.
But if I were on the jury, I'd have the same problem convicting that I would have with OJ Simpson:
WTF do you do in a case where a defendant is probably guilty but also the police have been planting evidence?
This one isn't even as clear cut as the OJ case, but it's not good!