- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/50439521
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/33851469
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/50439521
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/33851469
My personal tinfoil hat is that they are seeking the death penalty so he accepts a deal. They are scared of jury nullification.
That isn’t tinfoil-hat at all. I was reading a news story recently about how worried they are that they’ll have trouble finding impartial jurors, since there’s so much sympathy for him.
How exactly does this work? How do they determine someone to be impartial? If they weed out people for having sympathy but keep people who don’t, aren’t they making that jury partial to finding him guilty?
That’s the quiet part out loud. They want a jury that will convict him.
The jury is supposed to be unbiased, i.e. not favoring one side or the other. Obviously, it’s impossible to get a jury that’s completely impartial, especially in a case that’s as high-profile as this one, but they have to try.
They ask the jurors questions and then each side has the opportunity to remove ones that they deem problematic.
That’s normal though. I mean it shouldn’t be, but they always go as hard as they can hoping you’ll plead guilty to avoid a trial. When they say the death penalty is meant to dissuade criminals, they know it doesn’t work on crimes. It works on getting guilty pleas.
They haven’t said they are seeking the death penalty. They have charged him with a crime where they could seek it.
But I agree they’re pushing for a deal.