Jury Nullification

[RAUL]

jay cohen's main argument he wants to present to the supreme court, which was his argument to the appeals court, is that the judge at his original trial ordered the jury to ignore a certain legal loophole which could've acquitted cohen

but the jury didn't have to listen to the judge...the jury ultimately can do what it wants and ignore any judge and any judge's instructions about anything...it's called jury nullification...a jury can ignore overwhelming evidence of guilt and let a guy off if it wants to make a statement about something...the first o.j. trial is a perfect example...so despite what judge griesa may have told cohen's jury, that jury could have (figuratively) told the judge to shove it, we're freeing jay...but they chose not to

so the argument that the jury was essentially instructed by the judge to convict cohen holds no water, the jury could've disregarded the judge's instructions


and if the jury had disregarded those instructions and acquitted jay, there's nothing the judge could have done

if a jury wrongly (or rightly even) convicts someone, the judge can throw out the verdict instantly if he wants to

but if a jury wrongly (or rightly) acquits someone, the judge can't reverse the ruling

[maltese bippy]

cohen shoulda hired better liars, uh, lawyers

johnnie cochran, f. lee bailey, robert shapiro...these clowns got oj simpson, they coulda got cohen off

ben freakin' brafman? what was cohen thinking?

[jlpblade]

I thought it was the case that JC's attorneys were disallowed from presenting evidence to the jury, thus the jury didn't hear his defense.

[brink]

I had thought the judge told the jury to disregard something that was presented. I don't remember what it was.