632
Only 35% of Americans trust the US judicial system. This is catastrophic
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
632 points (99.1% liked)
politics
19244 readers
3169 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's incredibly unlikely for sure. The lawyers and judge won't ask anything about intent to nullify but they will ask if you have any prior knowledge or bias and pretty much anyone that intended to nullify would answer yes to those or face jail time for lying in court.
How could they find 12 people who do not have any knowledge or bias about the incident?
It's not so much being unaware of anything. It's about ensuring the juries are able to impartially evaluate the evidence presented. If one has a conflict of interest, or certain outside knowledge, they can't be impartial. Simply having read the news stories probably won't disqualify you. But if you've written similar statements as the accused, that would.
Since this is a high profile case, there are some interesting possible conflicts of interest. They might disqualify anyone that's ever had United Healthcare insurance. Or anyone that's had a claim denied, regardless of insurer. Or works in the medical field. Or had a family member with various medical conditions.
For all of the reasons that some people say it was justified, those are reasons a juror could be disqualified.
But these are all idle speculation at this point. It will be a long time (probably years) before they actually seat a jury.
Thank you for all the great info! If I could bother you with another question, what makes you think it will be years before they seat the jury, and how does this not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a "speedy and public trial"?
High profile and high impact cases always take a long time. Murder trials by themselves (with no significant impact) average something like 9 months before trial. Every extra facet adds more hearings and delays. There will be many, many motions from both sides on what can be shown to the jury.
As for his rights, he can certainly choose to invoke that. I believe that would give them 60 days to begin. However, that also means that his defense only has 60 days to prepare. Delays almost always benefit the defendant.