What is jury nullification and what does it mean for Luigi Mangione’s defense? | CNN
What is jury nullification and what does it mean for Luigi Mangione’s defense? | CNN
OH YEAH THEYRE TALKING ABOUT IT NOW
Please do not remove mods, really sorry for the Google AMP link, but this is a "subscribers only" blocked article on CNN that for some reason AMP just straight up bypasses and opens fine.
Direct link: https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/10/us/jury-nullification-luigi-mangione-defense/index.html.
Edit 1: updated title, CNN changed it on me
Jury nullification is an important logical conclusion of American jurist rules. This post will stay up.
Thank you, Based Mod. Not every day, we see one.
It's literally the reason to have juries. It's the last line of defense against unjust laws.
https://lemmy.world/comment/14404101
A very important explanation
Based
Repost of my own comment in a different community:
I would say that jury nullification isn’t just some accident of the legal system, but the primary reason we have juries in the first place.
Judges will say that juries are meant to just decide the simple facts of the case. But what sane person would ever design a system that assigns 12 random untrained nobodies to do that task? If all that mattered was judging the facts of the case, why not have 12 legal scholars instead? Why isn’t “juror” a profession, just like being a lawyer or judge is? If we want people to just apply the letter of the law to the facts of a case, why not fill juries with professionals, each who had a legal degree, and who have sat as jurors hundreds of times? Judging evidence and reading law is a skill. And it’s one that can be educated on, trained, and practiced. Why do we have amateur juries, when professional juries would clearly do their purported job so much better? Or why not just do what some countries do, and have most or all trials decided solely by judges? What exactly is the point of a jury? Compared to everything else in the courtroom, the jurors, the ones actually deciding guilt or innocence, are a bunch of untrained amateurs. On its face, it makes no damn sense!
No, the true reason, and really the only reason, we have juries at all is so that juries can serve to judge both the accused AND the law. Juries are meant to be the final line of defense against unjust laws and prosecution. It is possible for a law itself to be criminal or corrupt. Legislative systems can easily be taken over by a tiny wealthy or powerful minority of the population, and they can end up passing laws criminalizing behaviors that the vast majority of the population don’t even consider to be crimes.
The entire purpose of having a jury is that it places the final power of guilt and innocence directly in the hands of the people. Juries are meant as a final line of defense against corrupt laws passed by a minority against the wishes of the greater majority. An unaccountable elite can pass whatever ridiculous self-serving laws they want. But if the common people simply refuse to uphold those laws in the jury box, those laws are meaningless.
THAT is the purpose of a jury. It is the only reason juries are worth the trouble. A bunch of rank amateurs will never be able to judge the facts of a case better than actual trained legal scholars with years of experience. But by empowering juries, it places the final authority of the law firmly in the hands of the people. That is the value of having a jury at all.
Jury nullification is not just some strange quirk or odd loophole in our justice system. It’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place.
Also a guard against corruption. It's much harder to keep bribing random jurors than getting and keeping "Jurors" that you can control. See the US Supreme Court as a cautionary tale.
It's also because jurors are asked to judge the probability of something happening, not just whether it happened, so it's not something that you can leave to professionals because judging motive etc requires a representative sample of the population and not some remote legal class of citizens.
Hmm, maybe convict him, but give him no penalty and no imprisonment?
That's a thing, right?
I think the judge decides the penalty after the jury decides on guilt.
Is if you're Trump
We the jury find the defendant GUILTY! We sentance him to a fine of $1 and a lifetime membership to United Healthcare!
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
With all claims pre-approved and irrevocable.* Because you know these fuckers will try a fast one.
lifetime membership to United Healthcare!
So, the death penalty?
Yeah, I think that happened to some really important guy a few days back.
I believe the jury decides guilt or innocence, but the judge determines the sentence... In most cases
It depends on the state. Some states have a full second trial with a new jury in order to determine the sentencing.
Sometimes it's just a tacked on part of the original verdict.
And the rest of the time it's just the Judge who can do almost anything provided the sentence stays within certain parameters.
Yep that’s how that works
Honestly, I'm amazed Luigi hasn't had an "accident" in jail
Nah, that would make a martyr. If anything he's the safest guy in the place.
Not sure if you refer to this accident, but Jeffrey knew too much and was a risk. Luigi is not a risk anymore, his followers are. And they would probably be fueled by his death.
“I wonder whether a jury, whether they get impaneled, really buys his message, hates health care so much that they say, ‘Hey, look, we saw what you did. We know what you did, but we’ll excuse it,’” CNN Legal Analyst Joey Jackson said last month.
Sure, 'hating healthcare' is the issue here...
Jury nullification doesn't really exist. It's just an attempt to label something the jury decides that you believe goes against the law. The fact is, the jury is part of the law, and the jury can decide what parts of it are relevant, are enforceable in the case, and which need special considerations. Complaining about "jury nullification" is complaining about one of the fewest democratic elements in the judicial system, a system that on its own is almost completely autocratic and as such that much more susceptible to the formation of oligarchies and nepotism from within.
It's actually the conclusion of 2 things:
- Double Jeopardy means your cannot try someone twice for the same crime
- A juror cannot be held accountable for a decision they make
If both hold true, then logically, a jury can make a decision against legal precedent, without fear of repercussion - unless they are paid/coerced to come to that conclusion, and the defendant - once cleared by by a jury - cannot be tried again.
This means that legally, a jury can say GTFO to jury instructions set by judges.
This means that legally, a jury can say GTFO to jury instructions set by judges.
Only when it comes to acquittals though, which aren't appealable. Those decisions can and will be reversed in civil cases or if people convict inappropriately. You mentioned as much by noting double Jeopardy but I still think it's an important distinction that makes it irregular.
The salient question is not whether it exists, but whether it's a feature or a bug.
If jurors are intended to resolve questions of law, then judges really have no purpose. Just let jurors decide based on how much they like the defendant.
You may as well just do trial by combat instead - equally as just but far more entertaining.
Is it true there only needs to be one holdout in the 12 to grind it to a halt?
It depends on the charge. Some only need a majority, some need a unanimous vote.
They can order a new trial with a hung jury.
Yes
Let's not forget, maybe, just maybe, this guy is absolutely innocent, was nowhere near the crime at the time, and had nothing to do with it.
And the cops, in their over zeal to catch someone, anyone, found a poor unlucky person who looks like the guy in the crime scene photos and handily fabricated the rest of the physical evidence. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
Seriously, a written statement admitting guilt? How likely is that? Anyway, this is what I think is happening. And I doubt the real truth will ever be known, sadly.
Yeah, they were pretty quick to say some random guy in a hoodie was also this same random guy in a hoodie getting coffee. Where is this excellent police work in all the other crimes?
I truly am going to laugh so fucking hard if it is really not him and there is evidence putting him in a completely different location but still near by. They will have spent all this time focusing on the wrong person while the actual killer has made a complete getaway.
“He's bound to have done something,” Nobby repeated.
In this he was echoing the Patrician's view of crime and punishment. If there was crime, there should be punishment. If the specific criminal should be involved in the punishment process then this was a happy accident, but if not then any criminal would do, and since everyone was undoubtedly guilty of something, the net result was that, in general terms, justice was done.”
What really moved me to the camp that "Luigi might actually be innocent" was what Luigi said in perhaps his only public statement after being arrested. His lawyer has wisely since told him to shut up, but he did make one shouted public statement to the cameras.
He shouted, "this is extremely out of touch; this is an insult to the intelligence of the American people!"
To me, that doesn't really sound like the proclamation of a John Brown-type figure. Here's what John Brown's words were.
Luigi supposedly planned this elaborate killing down to a T. He even wrote his message on the shell casings. And he wrote a hand-written manifesto. Yet in his one chance so far to speak to the media, did he say, "I apologize for nothing!" Did he say, "Robert Thompson murdered thousands of people; I just brought him justice!" Did he say anything of the sort? Do his words sound like those of a revolutionary, boldly willing to die for his cause?
No. He sounds like a scared kid, caught in over his head, who knows he his being framed and facing potential capital punishment for a crime he didn't commit. That is how I would sound if I were being charged for those murders. I would probably be shouting something very similar if I were currently being framed for some high-profile murder. It would be an insult to the intelligence of the American people, and I would be rightfully scared and infuriated.
Now, it's certainly possible that this whole thing was an act. Maybe Luigi just planned that statement to garner public sympathy. IDK. But at least in terms of publicly observable demeanor, he really doesn't seem like some wild-eyed revolutionary. He seems like a scared kid who knows he's being framed.
You’re engaging in “Hopefullism” based on an emotional need. He absolutely did it. They have a preponderance of evidence that he was at the scene and committed the murder. Bordering on irrefutable proof if not outright.
I hope you don’t engage in hopefullism in other areas like climate change, and trump.
https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/12/13/edny-fbi-investigating-nypd-drug-planting-allegations/
https://theintercept.com/2020/03/18/nypd-misconduct-body-cameras-marijuana/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ex-nypd-cop-we-planted-ev_n_1009754
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-throws-man-guilty-plea-224510985.html
It's a hard truth to accept that police lie, falsify evidence, and frame people. And I don't even need to make the claim that cops in general plant evidence. I can make that claim for the NYPD specifically.
NYPD has been caught before planting evidence on people. They were caught doing this not in the dark days of Tammany Hall, but literally just within the last 10 years.
The only physical evidence linking Luigi to the crime scene is a bottle or wrapper that was found in a nearby trashcan that had his DNA on it. The shooter was dressed in a similar outfit to Luigi, a generic outfit that hundreds of men in NYC are wearing at any given time of the day or night. It might have been Luigi that placed that trash there. Or it could have even been the real killer. The real killer could have simply waited until someone that looked a bit like him dropped a wrapper in the trash, and then transported it to the scene of the crime. For a killer that seems to have planned things to such a level of intricacy, planting a false trail of evidence really doesn't seem unlikely.
I could absolutely see the NYPD convincing themselves, "well, we got Luigi's DNA near the scene. We have a video that appears to be him putting it in the trash can. This is almost certainly our guy, but he's a crafty one and knew what he was doing. Let's just fabricate some additional evidence to really seal the deal."
It's telling that Luigi is just the kind of target that the NYPD would pick out if they were going to frame someone for this. Yes, he is from a wealthy family, but he's been completely no-contact with them for the better part of a year. His family was actively looking for him. Luigi personally was not someone of high social status. He appears to have been living as a drifter and living in hostels and homeless shelters for the last year.
If the NYPD was going to try and frame someone, who better than some random homeless queer kid?
Do I think Luigi actually did it? Probably. But we don't convict people on "probably." At least with the evidence we've seen in public so far, I would vote not guilty for Luigi. I would want to have a lot more info on the provenance of the weapon and manifesto they had on him before I would vote to convict.
For example, here's what I want to know. Where is Luigi's workshop? You're not making that kind of 3D printed gun in a shared bedroom of a youth hostel. You need space, tools, and privacy. And no maker space is going to let you make and prototype guns on their printers. Where exactly did that gun come from? Where is Luigi's workshop?
I don’t see your point
the whole point of a jury is to allow the people to decide the law on individual cases. There are many problems with juries, but complaining about jury nullification just means you don't like the good parts of having a jury.
There are good parts and bad parts to it. Historically, it was used for good in the form of letting slaves go free. It was also historically used to let lynch mobs go free, which is horrifying.
It's not 100% good, nor is it 100% bad.
It's just another part of democracy. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried."
Any form of government can produce positive and negative outcomes. Even absolute monarchy had its moments. Once in a very blue moon, you would actually get a "good" king or tyrant, one that really did try to use his power and influence for the greater good. But through trial and error we learned that, on average, democratic systems produce far better outcomes than monarchical or dictatorial ones. No system of government has entirely positive outcomes; they just vary in their ratio of positive to negative.
All the best to Luigi. Good luck to him.
Jury nullification is the term for when a jury declines to convict a defendant despite overwhelming evidence of guilt. This can be a form of civil disobedience, a political statement against a specific law, or a show of empathy and support to the defendant.
“It’s not a legal defense sanctioned under the law,” said Cheryl Bader, associate professor of law at Fordham School of Law. “It’s a reaction by the jury to a legal result that they feel would be so unjust or morally wrong that they refuse to impose it, despite what the law says.”
Over the centuries, American juries have nullified cases related to controversial topics like fugitive slave laws, Prohibition and, in recent decades, the war on drugs.
Giggity.
Jury nullification is also why cops who murder people and klansmen get acquitted. It's not necessarily a good thing, just a quirk of the system.
It's not some minor quirk of the system. It's the only reason we have juries at all. If you just wanted a group of 12 people to decide guilt and innocence based on the facts of the case and the letter of the law, you would never hire 12 random untrained nobodies for that purpose. If that is all juries were for, you would have professional juries; being a juror would be a career that required a law degree.
We have juries to protect against corrupt laws. That is the only saving grace of having guilt and innocence be decided by 12 random untrained nobodies. Legislatures can become corrupted and end up criminalizing things that the vast majority of the population does not consider to be wrong. A jury of your peers is the last line of defense against corrupt laws. And this mechanism is the only reason we have juries like we do.
Oh it's definitely a good thing. But sometimes people are bigots. Fortunately most people dont want to let Klansman get aquited.
Juries also have acquitted some abused women who killed or attacked their husbands, such as Francine Hughes, leading to a wider recognition of what’s known as battered woman syndrome.
“Juries recognized that before the law did,” Conrad said. “The law is slow to change. Sometimes society changes much more quickly than the law, and that is when jury nullification should come in … We don’t need to have 18th-century law governing 21st-century behavior, and the jury can say so.”
New phrase added to the American lexicon in 2025 - battered patient syndrome.
He’s not guilty of murder. These people just can’t wrap their head around a jury NOT convicting someone with a lot of evidence but never seem to care about convicting people WITHOUT much evidence. Clutch your pearls all you want, if he is found not guilty there are gonna be more not-guilty people.
“This is not a case of (Mangione) like throwing blood on this guy as he’s walking into the convention,” Bader said, referring to the scene of the shooting outside an investors’ conference in Midtown Manhattan. “If the jury finds that there’s evidence that he ended this man’s life in cold blood, I don’t see the result being an acquittal because of anger toward the health insurance system.”
Dumbass
I don't see the result being acquittal because of the anger toward the health insurance system.
Feels like Mr. Bader himself might be a little out of touch with just how bad the health insurance system is.
Its hard for rich people to understand. I have no sympathy for their predicament
Please, please, god don't put me on the jury. I would hate to hold a murderer accountable for getting in the way of an innocent man's bullets.
I've been on a jury in the last little place I lived and you better believe they made sure it was all employed older white people against a young black man. I was the youngest on at 28. What they did to me is made me sit in a room with these, some probably decent, people, while one guy just talked and talked and lied and told fake stories like long discredited shit while a bunch were like oh yeah and I remember.
Fucking makes me sick. Sick at myself that I was such a little shit at that age that I didn't tell the old prick to shut the fuck up and stop lying. But what really makes me sick was after sitting in a room for hours with these people is the state's house slave walks in with cops and says we just walked the guy by, showed him who was going to convict him, and he took the plea deal. Fucking gross. Don't believe your fucking TV this is how most cases go.
Not guilty of a crime as stated by a jury of his peers. Has the legal ramification of nullifying laws that a jury says are unjust. It is literally THE last bastion of hope US citizens have for undoing criminal laws.
Well, there's one more box after jury box.
Really hope this is fully televised.
Nah, the topic of the month is going to be Trump declaring war on Mongolia because UFOs and Jewish Space Lasers.
Can't have the plebs talking about real issues.
Why the hell is CNN charging a subscription now? Are people really stupid enough to pay it?
Works fine on my machine
Press the button that makes all that stuff go away so you can just read the article...
do you prefer ads?
The jury nullification toolkit:
https://beyondcourts.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Jury-Nullification-Toolkit-English_0.pdf
I am going to cross fingers for it, but wouldn’t the state just resue in a higher court?
I really don’t think that even a dem controlled supreme court would allow it, but a republican one? We will be lucky if Luigi isn’t yahoo-ed
It's not a law suit. It's a criminal trial. The principal of double jeopardy says that an acquittal by a jury is final. The defendant can't be charged over the same crime again. They go free and clear.
Not sure the mods are the ones to worry about, last I heard the admin on this instance was censoring and/or prohibiting talk of jury nullification.
IIRC, it's because the country this instance is hosted in has laws that make it difficult to publicly discuss the subject.
No, it's hosted in the United States where is is a perfectly valid, legal term and you are absolutely allowed to talk about it.
The reason given was that they were afraid of being sued, but that reason does not stand up to scrutiny for a variety of reasons including the above (plus, nobody would have the standing to sue and even if they did they still could not successfully sue the host).
I don't know if their admin has an agenda or they're just being excessively cautious, but there is no valid legal reason whatsoever to censor talk of legal terminology (even one that is controversial).
My unpopular opinion on this is that the jury should find him guilty, if there is sufficient evidence.
Luigi may not deserve to be punished, but a justice system where juries just make up the law based on the vibe of the case sounds much worse than whatever we have now.
I do believe that there is a time to kill, but one would do so willing to bear the consequences.
Why have juries at all then?
Because they prevent corrupt judges pronouncing innocent defendants guilty.
Yeah, because cops never lie or plant evidence. Surely we can make such decisions based solely on what they've publicly said. /s
The whole point of a defense attorney and jury is to determine the strength of the evidence.
If a jury feels that evidence is insufficient, that's "reasonable doubt" and they can simply return a verdict of not guilty. You don't need jury nullification for that.
A part of me is with you. The end goal is equally applied rule of law, so it’s important to respect the system when you’re trying to improve it, right?
However, I think you could argue that the jury and its power to nullify is very much an intended check within the system. It’s kind of an ideal situation where “the people” get to bookend the legal process. They vote for the people making the laws, and they have the final OK before somebody gets sent to prison.
But that is all assuming people perceive the system as working for them to a reasonable degree. If it’s simply broken then why would people go along with the BS while hoping and voting for a better system? They can still vote for a better system while reducing harm in other ways.
There’s also the pragmatic side of me that wants to see good results for humanity (which includes our environment) regardless of the text of the local laws. And yeah, it’s very much a two-edged sword when random citizens do what they think is “right.” Bad examples of it are everywhere. But taking things case by case, what Luigi did was akin to shooting a serial killer between their murder stops. And more importantly, it shines a giant public light on the fact that real people suffer and die so that other people who are already set for life will make $10 million next year instead of only $9 million.
The jury's power to nullify is not an intended check.
If the jury is intended to weild this power then you don't need a judge at all. Jury's can just make up the law based on the vibe of the case.
Piss off with that noise.
A good point well made.
https://youtu.be/B-2qrFlwYlY?si=yTE7sODiDNtA9IzG
If you can't put together why I am linking you a 50 year old workers conflict in response to your comment, well I don't want to even talk to someone that can't understand common sense.
Sorry mate I'm not going to watch an hour and a half long video so I can understand your common sense.