Arizona Rancher Murder Trial Mistrial

[Provincial]

7 to 1. Only 8 jurors in this trial.

 

[Dartor]

7 to 1. Only 8 jurors in this trial.

You are correct. My mistake.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

One person unwilling to acknowledge the evidence and refuse to move away from their "feelings"?

Or maybe 1 or more of the 7 was aware of their Constitutional Right to Jury Nullification and the "feelings" involved were they didn't feel his guilt or innocence was the real issue

More people need to know

What is jury nullification?

For the answer, visit this Frequently Asked Questions resource provided by the Fully Informed Jury Association.

fija.org

 

[RVTECH]

She had something in her hands and he could have perceived it as a weapon. Lots of cops with younger minds and senses have done so.

Well, yes he COULD have perceived it as a weapon but NOT being a cop his 'perception' had better have transformed it INTO a weapon because it was pretty obvious (to me) it was a phone in her left hand and what looked like a pair of glasses she transferred to her right hand - and she was walking away from him with her hands in a pretty non - threatening manner.

Quite frankly I doubt any of this mattered to him as he was advancing on her while she was obviously trying to get away from him.

 

[Yarome]

Or maybe 1 or more of the 7 was aware of their Constitutional Right to Jury Nullification and the "feelings" involved were they didn't feel his guilt or innocence was the real issue

More people need to know

What is jury nullification?

For the answer, visit this Frequently Asked Questions resource provided by the Fully Informed Jury Association.

fija.org

How exactly does trying to pin a legal term to the hung jury result make any difference whatsoever?

At most you're talking about what is classed as a mild form of jury nullification, but only that juror can know if they believed the evidence showed he was innocent, but thought he should be found guilty anyway (jury nullification)... or.... he/she believed the evidence did in fact prove him guilty and that's how he/she voted (no jury nullification) resulting in a hung jury.

What I implied was in fact mild jury nullification when I suggested he/she was simply going with his "feelings". IOW, the evidence didn't support guilt, but he/she wanted him found guilty, anyway. And... his/her "feelings" were more important than following legal process.

Used correctly though, jury nullification is a jury nullifying the letter of the law... in a sense. Like coming to a verdict of "not-guilty" even when they feel the evidence does show the law was broken.

Most typically when a jury has sympathy for a defendant, feel it's an unjust application of the law or the law itself is just flat unjust.

Basically a constitutionally protected "veto" power of the people.

IE., During prohibition a bootlegger could get caught with a bottle of hooch in each hand and arrested, but a jury would often acquit them. On the dark side. A black man could have been accused of a crime, there was no evidence to support that he did, but a jury would convict him, anyway.

 

[JuglansRegia]

Its one of the safeguards in our legal system at work, jurors live in the same county and probably experience the same crime as the rancher, and they probably had some doubt he did it

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

How exactly does trying to pin a legal term to the hung jury result make any difference whatsoever?

At most you're talking about what is classed as a mild form of jury nullification, but only that juror can know if they believed the evidence showed he was innocent, but thought he should be found guilty anyway (jury nullification)... or.... he/she believed the evidence did in fact prove him guilty and that's how he/she voted (no jury nullification) resulting in a hung jury.

What I implied was in fact mild jury nullification when I suggested he/she was simply going with his "feelings". IOW, the evidence didn't support guilt, but he/she wanted him found guilty, anyway. And... his/her "feelings" were more important than following legal process.

Used correctly though, jury nullification is a jury nullifying the letter of the law... in a sense. Like coming to a verdict of "not-guilty" even when they feel the evidence does show the law was broken.

Most typically when a jury has sympathy for a defendant, feel it's an unjust application of the law or the law itself is just flat unjust.

Basically a constitutionally protected "veto" power of the people.

IE., During prohibition a bootlegger could get caught with a bottle of hooch in each hand and arrested, but a jury would often acquit them. On the dark side. A black man could have been accused of a crime, there was no evidence to support that he did, but a jury would convict him, anyway.

So . . . you agree with me, but you thought you would laugh at my post?

I bring it up whenever it's in the least bit applicable because people know about "a jury of their peers" but need to know how useless that is unless the jury knows that the Constitution protects our power to reject unjust and misapplied laws. Judges should not be the Lord High Master of the court and it's for all the belly aching about anti firearm laws will end for naught if everyone just marches into the jury room and thinks to themselves "Well, the judge told me if we think the defendant did it we need to render a guilty verdict"

Its one of the safeguards in our legal system at work, jurors live in the same county and probably experience the same crime as the rancher, and they probably had some doubt he did it

Or they believe he did it but believe the law was misapplied

 

[DunRanull]

I think more to the point of the original post, this is a case of the legal system attempting to make an example of someone they think of as a "vigilante." In doing so, they overreached and the evidence was not strong enough to prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) to the jury that the rancher was the one who shot the trespasser.

If they had found the bullet and matched it to his gun, it would have been a good case, but they didn't. In a gang-related shooting, the case would not have been brought, because there wasn't enough evidence to be worth the time and expense of prosecution. In the case of a vigilante, just the publicity of putting the old fellow through the wringer perhaps discourages persons from taking action themselves. That was the motivation for pursuing the case - discouraging vigilantism.

Our whole justice system relies on the general population having faith that the system will do the right thing and be both fair and objective. Once the public loses faith, the system is crippled. There are two ways to deal with such a failure. First, make it clear that the system will be fair, objective, and treat everyone the same. Second, just use the system to destroy anyone that goes vigilante, pulling out all the stops.

If you don't do the first, the second has a bad look.

"they overreached and the evidence was not strong enough to prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) to the jury that the rancher was the one who shot the trespasser".
FWIW there is NO level of legal proof "Shadow of a doubt". There is the "reasonable man" standard and "reasonable doubt".
Obviously someone(s) on the jury were not convinced of the defendants criminal culpability beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Yarome]

So . . . you agree with me, but you thought you would laugh at my post?

I was laughing at trying to apply "jury nullification" in it's textual form to describe a much more apropos "hung jury" description. At best... it would be in it's mildest form and only applicable if the juror did in fact believe the evidence did not support a guilty verdict, but wanted him to fry anyway. That's a complete unknown so we can't know if any jury nullification in any form occurred or not.

We DO know a "hung jury" did in fact occur.

To correct myself a bit. I guess what I was more implying was more along the lines of what we typically see in this day and age. Go with your feelings and completely ignore bothering to really consider any bothersome evidence.

I don't believe the juror thought the evidence did not support his guilt but wanted him found guilty anyway. I believe the juror already felt and decided he was guilty and chose not to faithful consider any evidence or law to the contrary.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I don't believe the juror thought he was innocent but wanted him found guilty anyway. I believe the juror already felt and decided he was guilty and chose not to faithful consider any evidence or law to the contrary.

And you believe that why? Tea leaves? Magic 8-Ball? (not that kind!) Oh maybe you just "feel" that is what happened.

 

[Lilhigbee]

While i fully support unanimous decisions being necessary for a conviction, a majority should be enough for an acquittal. Or even a 2/3 or 3/4 majority. It shouldn't need to be unanimous to acquit.

 

[Yarome]

And you believe that why? Tea leaves? Magic 8-Ball? (not that kind!) Oh maybe you just "feel" that is what happened.

Based on 7 out of 8 people looking at a man in a dress with his pecker printing can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that it's a man in a dress... and 1 will swear on their mothers grave it's a woman.

I never stated that he/she did anything. I also clearly stated that there is no way anyone can know one way or the other. That persons thoughts are their own. What I SAID was, "I believe". My beliefs are my own and I'm entitled to them.

I also believe that a group of rational individuals capable of setting their own feelings aside (such as the law demands), and presented with the same set of facts, are more likely than not to reach the same conclusion. The reality is though that many people filter everything through their own belief systems and personal preconceptions first.

Again. "I believe".

 

[HiFi Magnetics]

Ridiculous and save the rap. Illegal Alien means illegal.. That's why they call it illegal its against the law... And they should not be here.

 

[gmerkt]

I deleted my previous post on this subject. Because I just discovered this:

Texts reveal mindset of Arizona rancher accused of murder

George Alan Kelly texted his son regarding evidence of “33 drug runners” on his property and his AK-47 being “hot.”

www.kold.com

Emails available to the prosecution reveal a previous animus on the part of the defendant.

I still feel sorry for residents of the close southern border area. There is a lot of bad stuff going on there on a daily basis that most of us cannot fully appreciate.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

The rancher is innocent. The US Government owes him big bucks for years of his work defending the border which they refused to do. The prosecuting authorities owe him a refund of all expenses incurred in his legal defense, and if there is any justice in the world the US, the AZ, and the Mexican governments owe him many billions for compensatory and punitive damages, pain and suffering, etc that are a direct result of the intentional failure of the government to do their job.

 

[RVTECH]

The rancher is innocent.

Of what?

He most likely lost any chances of 'innocence' with his idiotic texts to his friend, including the admission of intending to commit illegal actions.

and that he intended to violently resist their migration with illegal and deadly force.

 

[Alexx1401]

While i fully support unanimous decisions being necessary for a conviction, a majority should be enough for an acquittal. Or even a 2/3 or 3/4 majority. It shouldn't need to be unanimous to acquit.

I could go for that. If say 8 of 12 said no go it would be nice if the State was just told you had your shot, no more. It would keep some of these idiots from just charging again just because they can.

 

[Alexx1401]

Of what?

He most likely lost any chances of 'innocence' with his idiotic texts to his friend, including the admission of intending to commit illegal actions.

and that he intended to violently resist their migration with illegal and deadly force.

I had not paid much attention to this when it was going on. If he was doing STUPID crap like that he was a fool. Many seem to never learn to be careful about what they put out there.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I had not paid much attention to this when it was going on. If he was doing STUPID crap like that he was a fool. Many seem to never learn to be careful about what they put out there.

And I'm pretty sure I've seen this movie before

 

[Alexx1401]

And I'm pretty sure I've seen this movie before

Social Media has been one of the most amazing things I have seen in my life. Even before the net I would now and then read of some morons who would film themselves committing some crime. Then of course the video would get leaked out and the fools would be sitting in court looking shocked