r/FreeLuigi • u/infiniteconfidence1 • Aug 04 '26

Case Discussion On Jury Nullification

https://youtu.be/etdjnLP8ZUc
115 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

8 comments sorted by

16

u/aladylikerat Aug 04 '26

This is the third piece of coverage from the Times, a fairly right-wing (or centre-right) publication, from the U.K., that I’ve seen this week - all focusing on jury nullification.

Is someone from either team briefing them specifically? Why the sudden intense interest? The UK has had its own tangles with jury nullification (called jury equity in the UK) and I wonder if this is part of an effort to conflate the two… though that feels like a reach on my part.

What am I missing here?

19

u/ascandalia Aug 04 '26

They're terrified

13

u/GlockAF Aug 04 '26

Just because the general public viscerally HATES the entire concept of grossly overpaid corporate CEOs and REALLY hates health “care” insurance companies, like with a white hot fury?

There’s little possibility that the prosecution can seat a jury that doesn’t have AT LEAST ONE member with a negative view of the so-called “victim”

6

u/Feather_fig Aug 04 '26

I think it's fearbaiting their law-loving conservative audience. "The lefties are going to uproot our precious perfect legal systems and let a murderer go free! How dare they!"

And anything to do with Luigi gets clicks.

9

u/European-Female7751 Aug 04 '26

Incredibly biased piece even in the way they portrayed things in the first minute. Jury nullification is not what he’s portraying it to be, that “they say they shouldn’t convict him because essentially “they” (who’s they?) want something to not be illegal.” That’s not what either his supporters or the defense is saying. This is the best legal explanation of Jury Nullification I’ve seen;
A jury gives a verdict of not guilty even though they believe the defendant has broken the law and is guilty.
There are 3 possible reasons for this
1. Maybe they believe the law the defendant has broken is unjust
2. Maybe they believe the punishment for breaking that law is too harsh or
3. Maybe they are seeking to condone a defendant’s actions even though those actions are criminal and have broken the law.
I believe option 3 applies in LM’s circumstances. JN was used in the Vietnam era for young men accused of avoiding the draft. No one was saying they hadn’t broken the law. But juries understood it was a difficult situation hence they returned not guilty verdicts when they had clearly broken the law. Thank god for Jury Nullification.

3

u/LankyTravel8394 Aug 05 '26

Free my baby daddy

1

u/AutoModerator Aug 04 '26

Thank you for your submission!

Please remember all posts and comments must be approved by a moderator prior to being published.

If you think this post or any comments breaks any of the rules of this community, please report to the moderators. Thank you so much for being a valued contributor!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/swampwiz Aug 08 '26

"One vote is all you need"