Originally Posted by Adder (Post 494695)

Sure, and the easy cases are easy. Which is why you keep retreating to them.

What about the hard ones?

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 494690)

How do you feel about jury nullification? Is that "anti-democratic"?



I’m sure there is, when we write hypos where we can just write a bunch of shit down and say "Assume there’s overwhelming evidence and no reasonable jury could ever do anything but convict . . . ."



You can fight my hypo all you want by saying it will never happen, but my guess is you’re often confused when your local prosecutor calls a press conference to announce that a case is being dropped. I’ve just given you the framework they use. “We decided we couldn’t get a conviction” is what they mean whenever a case is dropped. There’s usually something about his years of trial experience, plus a reference to some pretrial motion by a fucknut state court judge. I’m sure Sidd had a case where some of the charges were dropped pretrial and others weren’t. It only makes the news when the last one is dropped, but this is the mushy calculus: Am I going to lose? It’s the thing that keeps thousands of people out of jail.

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 494690)

How do you feel about jury nullification? Is that "anti-democratic"?

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 494696)

Are you fucking kidding me? I answer “yes” when NotBob asks if I’m standing on principle to let a racist murderer get away with it, and you call that “retreating”? I’m leaning in, bitch.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 494700)

Tough guy is not a look that works for you.

Now deal with Sidd's hypo of the weak case against the black defendant with a white victim and a juror pool the prosecutor believes is racist and will convict.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 494701)

Present the case, add in any exculpatory evidence, since it is, after all, part of the prosecutor's job to see that justice is served. Make it clear enough that even John Roberts could see the jury was acting inconsistently with the facts and rule no reasonable jury could convict, entering judgment NOV from the bench. At least that's what I would do.

If I was still unable to serve justice, I would find a way to appeal the conviction.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 494702)

Why not just decline to prosecute because you believe no reasonable jury would convict?

Same as when you face the inverse and you choose to prosecute because you believe no reasonable jury would acquit.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 494700)

Tough guy is not a look that works for you.

Now deal with Sidd's hypo of the weak case against the black defendant with a white victim and a juror pool the prosecutor believes is racist and will convict.

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 494694)

The latter, I hope, but analogizing a brief in the appellate court to a criminal trial against a flesh-and-blood man is not particularly illuminating.

We’ve had this argument before and no minds were changed. I just enjoy provoking conservatives to admit liberal principles, and fairness dictates that occasionally I should provoke a liberal or two to espousing some frighteningly illiberal ideas, and “We should make people go through a trial because that’s the worst we’re allowed to do to them” is something I can provoke a liberal to say if we start with the presumption the defendant is a cop, or a racist, or best of all a racist cop. But it’s a terrible policy to have prosecutors who “vindicate” the victims of crimes by bringing charges that in their judgment are doomed to failure. It makes charging someone with a crime a noble act, and if God forbid it is ever made the official policy of the land, it will harm the poor and disenfranchised and minorities a million times more than it will afflict the comfortable.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 494698)

But you are suggesting that the prosecutor should assume -- or believe, based on experience -- that jurors will not follow their own oaths, and will engage in classic "juror nullification." I don't think that's something prosecutors should bow to.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 494671)

Isn't that what a petition for a change of venue is for? I realize it's an extreme step, and one that often isn't worth the expense, but for the really egregious acts, it is an option, albeit one I don't know is effective.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 494708)

I don't think I disagree with the above, but it gets a lot harder (and more realistic) as soon as the prosecution is an uphill battle instead of "doomed."

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 494703)

I think that prosecutorial discretion goes out the window in some high-profile cases. At some point, people do want to see the process in process. I think that any place you have even the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest, discretion demands a hearing.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 494703)

I think that prosecutorial discretion goes out the window in some high-profile cases. At some point, people do want to see the process in process. I think that any place you have even the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest, discretion demands a hearing.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 494710)

Are you saying that prosecutors who don't think they can get a conviction for all the wrong reasons even when he has tons of evidence should go ahead with the case because the defendant may be able to get the venue changed?