The Supreme Court declined Monday to reconsider a legal rule that might surprise most Americans: Judges can punish defendants for certain crimes even after a jury has acquitted them of those charges...So all we need now is for some black robe colluding with a prosecutor to think you guilty?
U.S. District Judge John Shabazz agreed with the prosecutors and said there was good reason to think Hurn was guilty of the crack cocaine charges.
WTF? Seriously.
Why is that not a criminal conspiracy to deprive a citizen of Constitutional rights under color of authority? Why aren't the perpetrators the ones behind bars?
And why would the high court let it stand?
This is so messed up. This is the sort of gross injustice and tyranny revolutions are born from. Or ought to be.
[Via DONE! SEO]
5 comments:
It's called a "JNOV," which is Latin for something that translates to "judgment notwithstanding the verdict."
Long standing tradition. And yup, why even bother having a jury trial if that tool is in the toolbox?
They need that ace up their sleeve, in case jury nullification ever catches on.
I know I'd start my own revolution if some asshole judge ever threw that at me!
crotalus, It's too late by then.
Only if you die before the judge does.
Post a Comment