Gorsuch tries to overturn the iron law of nonunanimous jury verdicts

[Leucosticte]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/493653-supreme-court-rules-non-unanimous-jury-verdicts-unconstitutional

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that defendants in criminal trials can only be convicted by a unanimous jury, striking down a scheme that has been rejected by every state except one.

Jury verdicts will always be nonunanimous, because the government will never accept having a huge number of hung juries, as we would if they didn't devise some way to either outvote or get rid of jurors who would tend to hang the jury.

The main way this is done is through jury selection. The two sides find out some information about the jurors (e.g. based on their answers to questions) and strike them based on that. For example, in my child custody case, if memory serves, the government struck from the jury a foster parent and a guy whose girlfriend lost her kid to the CPS system. Those were two people we'd expected would be on our side, and probably the government had the same impression about them, which was why they struck them (using their peremptory strikes).

This made it possible for the government to get a unanimous vote from the jury to take my kid away. Or at least, it made it easier.

There are probably a lot of other iron laws out there. For example, an iron law of combination adversarial-inquisitorial proceedings. Systems will claim to be one or the other, but they always end up having both. For example, in the U.S., which claims to have an adversarial system, the probation officers and law clerks end up playing an inquisitorial role; they come to their own conclusions and give those to the judge to assist him in making his decision, much like what the rapporteur does in an inquisitorial system.

 

[Admin]

This is why it is valuable to have stealth vintologi members, then if they get selected to a jury they will be able to prevent a conviction "jury nullification".

Thus even successfully reaching out to a small number of people will be highly beneficial provided they are able to shut up about it. The only criteria that matters in this case is the probability of being accepted as jury member, intelligence and how good you look doesn't matter.

 

[Leucosticte]

This is why it is valuable to have stealth vintologi members, then if they get selected to a jury they will be able to prevent a conviction "jury nullification".

Thus even successfully reaching out to a small number of people will be highly beneficial provided they are able to shut up about it. The only criteria that matters in this case is the probability of being accepted as jury member, intelligence and how good you look doesn't matter.

I've been called for jury duty once, and what ended up happening is that they only needed maybe a third of the people they called, and the rest were allowed to go home (although we still got our check for $25 or however much it was). But, if I'd been one of those who got to sit there and answer questions, as opposed to being among the two-thirds of the prospective jurors who were stuck in the jury room while they asked the others questions, they probably would've asked about felony convictions, and at that point, I probably would've been struck from the panel.

That's always kind of a bittersweet thing, because if you get put on the panel, then you're stuck in the awkward situation of having to be the lone holdout and deal with 11 people who are pissed off that you're not "listening to reason" or whatever. Plus probably most of these defendants are niggers anyway, so even if they get convicted, it's not that much of a loss, aside from the fact that now we have to pay for their incarceration, when it would've been cheaper to just put them on welfare, aside from the fact that they're probably going to father a bunch of niglets whom we also have to pay for. Probably if they were to be acquitted, they'd be back in court soon enough on some other charge because they can't, or don't want to, earn a living in some non-criminal way.