Yes. I am pretty sure most of the time judges can set aside verdicts in criminal cases. It almost never happens. I cannot think of a situation where the judge does not have that option on the table in a standard criminal trial. It almost never happens and it likely won’t here.
Conceivable, sure. A gun that can hit the moon from earth is conceivable, but it’s a very low probability. There is always threat level white noise associated with high tension situations like this. But the preponderance of credible threats of violence are coming from the left.
The Cauvin trial was the litmus test for this. If any case would have exploded into riots from acquittal it’s that one. But he was found guilty, so no riots.
The outside threat situation is something that the court needs to take into consideration and address. Sequestering in cases like this is a must. You can instruct the jury all you want, outside of your view, they can do what they want. Search what they want, watch what they want, talk to others about the case if they want.
This jury has every right and reason to be scared and that cannot be good for the verdict. The court gave no assurances to the jurors that they would be protected regardless of outcome. So the jurors get to deliberate inside a courthouse that is being protested, of course they hear the protests. And the know the magnitude of the decision they are making.
I would not be surprised if the jury is perhaps trying to split the baby down the middle and that’s what is taking so long. Make him guilty of lesser charges, because it most definitely was not murder, to appease the crowd.
I was called to jury duty a couple of weeks ago. When they are assembling juries, they are not looking for the best and brightest. The are looking for the clueless and unaware. I was dismissed quickly, possibly because I spoke english very well. Many in the jury room were not english speaking, at least not fluently. And most of those were picked.
If I were Kyle, knowing I had a reasonable judge, I would have chosen a bench trial since I couldn’t get change of venue. I think the legal questions are pretty much self evident in Kyle’s favor. And you don’t have the wild card of potentially poisoned, paid off, activist, threatened or otherwise compromised jury.
Someone with no clue at the NYT?! Who would have thunk it!
Trust in media, in the U.S. is the lowest of most western counties. Someone released a study the other day, that out of like 46 countries, the U.S. ranked the lowest in media trust out of all of them.
That’s usually the argument. “I don’t like them, therefore you should not have something I don’t like.” This is where you get shit like “My truth” and garbage like that. Since actual truth and facts do not support what you say, you create a new, much lower standard for truth, only you have to believe it.
I absolutely disagree. They know and they know well what is going on outside. They fucked up by not addressing it directly in court. Pretending it’s not there doesn’t make it go away. And pretending that it’s not going to affect deliberations is just idiotic. It was absolutely incumbent on the defense to make that jury feel as safe as possible and to my knowledge it wasn’t even brought up.
And who knows what the jurors experience at home. There are recordings of the jury out there already, coming and going to and from the court house. Activist types have already expressed publicly, their intent to hurt jurors if the verdict doesn’t go the right way. If we cannot protect the jury from violence or threats of violence, what’s left of the justice system is done.