You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
23 points

I genuinely think that they’ll have a hard time finding an impartial jury… I think that at this point, pretty much anyone who doesn’t live under a rock has heard of him and has an opinion on whether he should be found guilty.

Regardless of which way you fall on that particular topic, you’re biased, and that would exclude you from serving on the jury.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Correct. And I strongly suspect they are wildly pumping out news about him to narrow the juror pool to people who do live under rocks.

The other option is that jurors lie about their bias, which opens them up for legal consequences.

His defense, in any case, has a very difficult task - they need to be able to somehow communicate him being innocent against stacked charges OR paint him light that the rest of us see that leans them towards Jury Nullification.

My hope is that potential jurors hide their bias, which isn’t easy, but gives him the best chance.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

If they can find an “unbiased” jury, then the defense does indeed have a difficult challenge ahead. Even if the prosecution fails with their terrorism charge, they can fall back on murder 2, which is much harder to defend against.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Oh, I already have a simple solution to that.

I ain’t seen nothin in that video.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The other option is that jurors lie about their bias, which opens them up for legal consequences.

That’s almost impossible to prove, and almost never prosecuted.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

There are plenty of nevers and almost nevers with this case already, so it’s not unreasonable to worry that there might be more.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

They’re trying to use fear to spin a story against this guy. They’re going to use fear when telling them about lying under oath.

They’re going to use fear the whole way, it’s their only weapon.

It’s why they are so afraid. A lot of us see through it, and see their real fear.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

I’ve spoken with friends about this is Denmark, and we all read the news with great pleasure.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points
*

The 65+ crowd view him unfavorably, so I expect the jury to be a bunch of 65+ people

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

An unfavorable view is still bias. The defense would reject any juror that shows significant malice towards the plaintiff.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

The defense can try to reject any juror that shows significant malice. Oftentimes both sides only have so many that they can strike from the potential juror pool unless the judge agrees there is enough bias to sway someone.

…and since this entire thread started because the judge is married to a previous executive of a healthcare* company, well, good luck Luigi defense.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

I thought the same thing about the Trump trial, but they legitimately turned over rocks and found the most oblivious Americans living under them. There are evidently tons of people out there living in their own little bubble, completely untethered from the news media or even just casual conversations with strangers and probably have no idea who Luigi is right now. The news might not be able to reach them, but a jury summons from the state can, and the prosecution is going to hunt for these individuals specifically.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

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. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. 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.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 200K

    Comments