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
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.
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.
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.
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.
All the best to Luigi. Good luck to him.
Why the hell is CNN charging a subscription now? Are people really stupid enough to pay it?
Press the button that makes all that stuff go away so you can just read the article…
do you prefer ads?
Yes, because they can be blocked.
Keeping in mind that I am not debating the merits of CNN specifically — unfortunately in a reality where there are no subscription or similar means to pay for professional journalism, and everyone is blocking ads, these services die. Both the ones you approve of, and the ones you don’t.
I prefer quality journalism, not paying for the shit CNN generally churns out. Are you really suggesting it’s worth paying for CNN? We’re not exactly talking about Deutsche Welle here in terms of journalistic integrity and serious reporting just because they have the occasional decent article.
I think it’s a reasonable response to the ‘why the hell they’re charging a subscription now’ part of your question. Probably not a question you actually wanted an answer to, but regardless of opinions about the quality of their journalism I think it’s important that publishers are investigating alternate ways to monetize their work — publishers want to rely on ads for revenue about as much as readers want to see them. A fragmented subscription model across the whole industry being the right answer seems doubtful, but at least it gives them a revenue stream which doesn’t come with advertiser strings attached. And who knows, maybe it will positively change the content they put out if they garner enough subscribers with high enough expectations to pay.
“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
Please see rule 4 and update your post title
Fixed, looks like they changed it on me
It happens, no worries. That’s why I usually comment instead of delete with Rule 4
Appreciate it. I swear most news sites will change a title 3, 4 times after publication these days. Must have some shit to do with SEO or something.
Sounds to me like either:
- Rule 4 should be rescinded
- The link should always be to a timestamped archived version so that the title remains consistent
- A bot should be created that verifies that the title was accurate at the time of posting
- Some kind of Lemmy functionality should be created that automatically polls and updates the post title when the article title changes.
Rule 4 definitely shouldn’t be rescinded, there would be way too much editorializing of titles to fit the posters narrative (because let’s be real, >50% of users don’t open the article, at least not at first). It definitely needs to stay in a true news community.
A timestamped archive version would be nice but you then end up taking away direct traffic from legitimate websites- the same problem as the AMP link I unfortunately had to use above. No traffic, no survival. (Granted I will happily post an archive link when content is paywalled; but most other sites do still need that traffic.)
your options 3 and 4 could work fine- 3 just seems like spam and you’ll get people hating it like the MBFC bot, and 4 already partially exists- in the form of the link tagline that appears under the post when you actually open it. Warning users about noncompliance and letting them decide if they care enough to change it or not is probably fine enough for now.
I just feel like forcing people to babysit their posts when it isn’t their fault that the news outlet changed the title out from under them might discourage posting.
The preceding discourse was civilized and adult, and I am a better person for having witnessed it. Well done all.
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
wouldn’t the state just resue in a higher court?
No, because the constitution prohibits double jeopardy.
Pls correct me, but you can challenge a ruling for mistrials, can’t you?
And the higher court decides the legitimacy of the prev ruling, right?
Jury nullification means acquittal, and you cannot retry someone after acquittal.
Also prosecutors generally cannot appeal an acquittal.
Mistrials and appeals only work for a guilty verdict. They aren’t an option for a not guilty verdict.
Assuming the trial results in a hung jury the state can refile the case over and over again - but if the outcome isn’t viewed as a fluke then it’s just a huge waste of money.
To clarify a hung jury and jury nullification are different things. The most likely outcome is probably a hung jury and I’d rate a non-guilty declaration as more likely than a guilty declaration.
