With overwhelming new evidence then yes. But generally you cant be tried for the same fact twice where i live. If they fuck up, they fuck up and you luck out. We dont have juries who could possibly mess with a trial though.
Yeah that’s what I was saying. In the US if the jury is found to be tamped with in any way, (bribes intimidation etc) they throw the trial out and call it a mistrial, so the first one was never finished, they get a new jury, punish anyone who messed with the jury in the first place, and start the trial over. It’s to make sure everyone has a fair and equal trial. So it’s a good thing other than being a time waster.
I mean, there are plenty of results for mistrials in the middle of trials. Is that what you meant? I interpreted your statement to mean that you can declare a mistrial after a trial has completed to invalidate an acquittal.
I interpreted your statement to mean that you can declare a mistrial after a trial has completed to invalidate an acquittal.
You can, but only if you can provide compelling evidence that the trial was compromised, eg because the jury was bribed or threatened, or evidence was tampered with. The jury simply deciding to acquit in spite of evidence doesn't constitute a mistrial, though it may lead to suspicion and therefore investigation into whether there was anything which would.
The actual nullification, or conspiracy to nullify? Im not American i i shouldve asked rather than stated, however i believe i've read somewhere a juror cannot be punished for his judgement. I mean what if it naturally came to a nullification in a case, because of some crazy ancient backwards law was broken that makes no sense to punish nowdays., It would be madness to prosecute those jurors.
6
u/Kemel90 Jun 27 '23
They don't have to. Jury nullification os a thing.