Ideally, a jury’s responsibility is to weigh the evidence and find whether the evidence supports a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.
There has been no jury selection yet, let alone presentation of evidence. I would guess that any jury nullification would depend on a defense tactic of “Yes, my client committed this act, and his motive was to prevent UHC from directly causing the deaths of their customers by refusing to honor legitimate claims or by delaying payment of claims.” There might be something there, especially since UHC changed its stance on something (I forget exactly what right now) in the wake of their CEO being killed.
But that would be a really difficult defense to mount. You’d basically be admitting to the act and hoping that at least one person on the jury would A) agree with your defense, and B) be willing to hold out over it, and C) not be replaced by an alternate for “failure to follow jury instructions” or some such thing.
Again, since a jury has not even been selected, I won’t speculate on what evidence gets presented and what evidence (if any) ends up being excluded. By extension, I cannot agree with your above comment.
Please note that I am also not saying “He’s guilty, he should hang”, because that would also entail speculating on evidence.
They don’t have to say outright that the guy was scum and got what he deserved, just question why the federal charges are being brought while there’s a state case and ask questions about how many other people would have a good reason to want this health insurance executive dead. You can introduce the message without abandoning all other defense and saying it explicitly.
they will more than likely choose 12 retirees, and people that dont read the news that much plus any pushovers. thats how they choose these are the most easily manipulated juror types out there. ive been in different forums about juror duties, its almost always these people.
on reddit people speculated they will probably choose one where thier own insurance hasnt screwed them over, so it creates a bias for the prosecution.
Having one person isn’t going to help much, even if they don’t get replaced, it’ll be a hung jury at best, unless they’re the most persuasive, charismatic person on earth.
And you generally don’t want a hung jury. It’s just delaying, and now the other side knows your entire defence strategy and can prepare on better countering it. You having information on their strategy isn’t as valuable.
Ideally, a jury’s responsibility is to weigh the evidence and find whether the evidence supports a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.
There has been no jury selection yet, let alone presentation of evidence. I would guess that any jury nullification would depend on a defense tactic of “Yes, my client committed this act, and his motive was to prevent UHC from directly causing the deaths of their customers by refusing to honor legitimate claims or by delaying payment of claims.” There might be something there, especially since UHC changed its stance on something (I forget exactly what right now) in the wake of their CEO being killed.
But that would be a really difficult defense to mount. You’d basically be admitting to the act and hoping that at least one person on the jury would A) agree with your defense, and B) be willing to hold out over it, and C) not be replaced by an alternate for “failure to follow jury instructions” or some such thing.
Again, since a jury has not even been selected, I won’t speculate on what evidence gets presented and what evidence (if any) ends up being excluded. By extension, I cannot agree with your above comment.
Please note that I am also not saying “He’s guilty, he should hang”, because that would also entail speculating on evidence.
They don’t have to say outright that the guy was scum and got what he deserved, just question why the federal charges are being brought while there’s a state case and ask questions about how many other people would have a good reason to want this health insurance executive dead. You can introduce the message without abandoning all other defense and saying it explicitly.
“The man who saves his country breaks no laws” isn’t that right DoJ?
They’ll find 12 angry rich white women and its over for him. You know it, I know it. Dude martyrd himself from the beginning and I bet he knew it
they will more than likely choose 12 retirees, and people that dont read the news that much plus any pushovers. thats how they choose these are the most easily manipulated juror types out there. ive been in different forums about juror duties, its almost always these people.
on reddit people speculated they will probably choose one where thier own insurance hasnt screwed them over, so it creates a bias for the prosecution.
Having one person isn’t going to help much, even if they don’t get replaced, it’ll be a hung jury at best, unless they’re the most persuasive, charismatic person on earth.
And you generally don’t want a hung jury. It’s just delaying, and now the other side knows your entire defence strategy and can prepare on better countering it. You having information on their strategy isn’t as valuable.