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
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
Comment