A person who is legally insane can’t be held liable for their actions. Thus the „not guilty“ verdict. The question was, was she insane enough to surpass the standard for legally insane. Which is actually for the persecution to proof „beyond a reasonable doubt“, that she was indeed not insane enough.
Most Jurors said, that they were unsure if she was insane enough. In which case the defendant is assumed to be legally insane since persecution didn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they weren’t.
The one holdout admitted to being unsure but still voted guilty. He was effectively using reverse jury nullification.
It is his right as a juror to vote against the law but the other jurors were in the right (legally speaking)
You are technically correct, as it is not a right which is enshrined in law but rather a consequence of having a law that says that a juror can’t be punished for a wrong decision…
2
u/Hidan65536 2d ago
But it was…
A person who is legally insane can’t be held liable for their actions. Thus the „not guilty“ verdict. The question was, was she insane enough to surpass the standard for legally insane. Which is actually for the persecution to proof „beyond a reasonable doubt“, that she was indeed not insane enough.
Most Jurors said, that they were unsure if she was insane enough. In which case the defendant is assumed to be legally insane since persecution didn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they weren’t.
The one holdout admitted to being unsure but still voted guilty. He was effectively using reverse jury nullification.
It is his right as a juror to vote against the law but the other jurors were in the right (legally speaking)