what is it called when the jury ignores the law and acquits an obviously guilty defendant?

April 24, 2021

The case of the so-called “Stand Your Ground” law in Seattle, WA, is an example of what happens when the jury’s mindset is skewed. In the case of Michael C. Smith, a young man was acquitted of the murder of his friend and his friend’s unborn child after a lengthy trial.

A quick glance at the video to see if it’s actually a video you’ve seen before is just an example of what happens to the jury when they ignore the law and convict a defendant.

That’s a shame because the state Supreme Court in Washington State has declared that no citizen has a right to resist an officer’s use of deadly force. This means, according to the court, that the officer may use deadly force against you if you have a gun. In other words, police officers are allowed to simply walk up to you and shoot you for no reason at all.

In other words, you cannot shoot and you can’t make it right. That means that you are allowed to shoot. That is why they put the gun in the holster.

The court’s ruling says that the city of Seattle has “unconstitutionally, and for no rational reason, imposed the use of deadly force against a non-dangerous individual.” I would like to say that they just made one of those really weird rules. But I’m sure that’s not the case. The court also threw out all of the charges against the officer when it came to his false statements, because the officer said that it was the gun that’s the problem.

The court found that the officer used his police radio to get the order from the judge, and it was not until this point that the officer realized that the order was not in his case. The court also threw out the charges of assault and battery, because the officer had no legal justification to use the gun he took from the suspect.

So, if the officer did have legal justification to use the gun, then why didn’t the officer tell the judge? It’s easy to criticize the officer (and the court) for not doing that, but it seems rather silly to say that they have no legal justification for the use of that weapon.

The point is that the law is often the most important thing to follow when you’re called before a jury. In the case of the officer in question, the law is that a gun in a public place is a legal weapon at that point in time. The judge should have told the jury that there were no legal grounds for the use of the gun.

The problem with this is that the jury gets to decide the law. If they find the gun legal, then they can determine whether the officer was justified in using it. If they find the gun illegal, then they could infer, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that the officer was actually using it for an illegal purpose. This is a subtle but important point.

If our system of justice says we have to let the jury decide the law, but not the facts, that’s where the danger lies – the jury can be swayed by the other side’s narrative, even if it is blatantly false. Of course, the jury will still be able to render a good verdict if there is sufficient evidence – in the absence of actual evidence the jury can draw all reasonable inferences from the facts.

Article Categories:

His love for reading is one of the many things that make him such a well-rounded individual. He's worked as both an freelancer and with Business Today before joining our team, but his addiction to self help books isn't something you can put into words - it just shows how much time he spends thinking about what kindles your soul!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 100 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here