Close Menu
    Politics

    ‚Sandwich Man‘ steigt aus: DC Jury Nullification im Zeitalter von Trump

    Share.
    View 43 Comments

    43 Kommentare

    1. Archz714 on

      „sandwich man gets off“ ….someones been reading my pornhub search history

    2. Buddha-Embryo on

      *“Jury nullification is an important check on government abuse of power. Today, it may be one of the few guardrails on democracy remaining in our legal system.”*

    3. Tompthwy on

      Guy sacrificed his whole footlong. With food prices these days? Not all heroes wear capes. Or run faster than a light jog.

    4. Ok-Lets-Talk-It-Out on

      The best part was Bondi claiming he was the deep state and is proof of its existence. Like damn the deep state has been so crippled they are resorting to food fights. What a joke of an administration.

    5. q1qdev on

      I think Jared besmirched „sandwich man“  forever. 

      Can we call him Citizen Hero or something if we insist on the theme?

    6. LazloHollifeld on

      This isn’t jury nullification though. This was Bondi failing to secure a felony indictment against the subway man. He can still have charges brought against him for the offense and is still liable until charges have been brought and settled.

    7. sylbug on

      Is it really ‚jury nullification‘ to decline to bring obviously trumped-up charges? Or is that just a grand jury doing their job while the DA and police embarrass themselves with nonsense?

      Edit: Apparently a whole lot of people don’t know what ‚jury nullification‘ means. It’s not when the jury gives an appropriate not-guilty ruling. It’s when they acquit despite believing beyond reasonable double that the defendant is guilty because they are morally opposed to the law itself.

    8. TheCaptainDamnIt on

      This isn’t ‚jury nullification‘ it’s that Trumps DOJ is so inept at practicing law and over charging people it can’t even make a case to a grand jury.

      Also this is some serious revisionism by the author
      >Jury nullification was prevalent during the pre-Civil War period. A classic example would be the acquittal of abolitionist defendants who aided escaped slaves.

      Yes, *BUT* jury nullification was used most in this country post reconstruction when you couldn’t convict a white person for killing a black person in the south for 30-40 years. That is what jury nullification was mostly used for, protecting the KKK and whites who committed crimes against black people.

    10. BobInIdaho on

      This wasn’t even jury nullification. They wanted a felony charge, and the facts were not enough to justify a felony indictment.

    12. NovelRelationship830 on

      They will not let this die out of spite. I expect some kind of civil lawsuit to be filed – if they can’t imprison him, they’ll bankrupt him with legal fees instead.

    13. Hazywater on

      It’s not necessarily nullification. A felony charge was ridiculous and the system worked the way it’s supposed to.

    18. obeytheturtles on

      This isn’t jury nullification. The distinction is subtle but important. Jury nullification is a jury refusing to enforce a law despite otherwise credible evidence of a crime.

      In this case, the jury is determining that the state’s ability to present evidence is not credible due to apparent corruption of the DoJ, and as such, there is no evidence of a crime.

      The reason that this distinction is important is because a juror can be dismissed for discussing nullification, but not for saying that the prosecution is not credible. The judge literally instructs the jury that it is their duty to determine the credibility of testimony and evidence.

    20. klauskervin on

      It’s not jury nullification if the grand jury doesn’t find enough evidence for the charges. That is the entire purpose of a grand jury. If anything we should be celebrating a grand jury actually doing its job and not just being a rubber stamp to proceed with charges.

    26. No_Huckleberry2350 on

      I disagree that this is jury nullification. Jury nullification is where the jury believes that he committed the crime but should not serve the time. However, claiming that throwing a sandwich at someone is felony assault seems to me massive overcharging – so you could refuse to indict because you don’t believe it was a felony attack, rather than thinking it was a felony attack but justified.

    28. Interesting_Pea_5382 on

      Boomers may be happy with the results right now but when it comes to their harassment and their indictments for trivial stuff that would be another monkey

    29. bdog59600 on

      For perspective, 99% of Federal Grand Juries vote to proceed with indictment because Federal prosecutors usually have their shit together. The Trump DOJ has failed to indict in multiple cases just this week, which is basically unheard of.

    31. EntroperZero on

      It’s not jury nullification when a jury simply finds there is no probable cause for an indictment. That’s just a jury doing normal jury things. Nullification is when the jury is well aware that a law has been broken and refuses to convict anyway.

    33. fievrejaune on

      That’s not nullification, it’s just common sense, there was no crime.

    34. silverwoodchuck47 on

      I’m looking for the post that says that „Jury refuses to indict ‚Sandwich Man‘ of assault with a deli weapon.“…..

    35. disidentadvisor on

      At this point, I’m not surprised so many people don’t even understand how their government works (including prosecutions).

      This was 99% not jury nullification. A grand juries’s purpose is to secure an indictment against a party. The reason people say you could indict a ham sandwich is because the threshold is probable cause or enough evidence to reasonably believe a crime was committed and the person accused committed the crime. It is basically the states strongest moment as well because it is basically just the prosecutor presenting the evidence they’ve gathered.

      In this case, the requirements for assault were seemingly not met based on the juries‘ assessment.

      Jury nullification would typically be clear guilt but an innocence finding for various reasons by the jury. As others mentioned in reconstruction this could be racially motivated. A more recent illustration would be someone arrested for possession of some recreational drugs like weed while sitting in a park during a picnic and the jury refusing to convict despite overwhelming evidence they were in possession etc.

      I think the distinction matters because it signals that the author/general audience should be better informed on the topic. Finally, Jury Nullification would attach double jeopardy (the case could not be brought again)… that does not apply during a grand jury.

    36. evasive_dendrite on

      Bullshit like this is exactly why grand juries exist. Criminal charges for throwing a sandwich is outrageous.

    37. oingapogo on

      I don’t think a grand jury not returning an indictment is „jury nullification“, which is returning a verdict of „Not Guilty“ when the evidence shows guilt.

      The sandwich man was over charged plain and simple and the jury recognized it. Simple battery, which throwing a sandwich at someone is, is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

    40. strolpol on

      Subway is missing an opportunity if they don’t spotlight this guy somehow

      We need companies to recognize that telling the government off is popular actually

    41. LumberJohnXXX on

      You know subway is missing a great marketing moment. Footlong subs, no ice

    42. IceNein on

      Is it really jury nullification? Does throwing a sandwich rise to the level of a felony offense?

    43. tclbuzz on

      Who says it’s nullification? There’s no felony in the video so it’s a decision on the merits I would claim.

    Leave A Reply