Post #2646292
2026-05-12 23:08 UTC
@ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us In the common law tradition, juries have the power to refuse to convict, even if the evidence of guilt is clear.
If information about the actual sentence the defendant is facing was deliberately withheld from the jury, then the jury was never empowered to produce a fair verdict, the trial was unfair, and the sentence should be overturned. Because of the principle of double jeopardy, the defendants should go free.
At least, that is my understanding of Justice.
Replies (1)
-
@Simon318ppm@mastodon.sdf.org 2026-05-13 09:55
@gcvsa@mstdn.plus @ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us I’d agree but the judge also barred the jury from being told of their right to acquit based on their conscience (even though it’s inscribed on an actual stone plaque in the court building), indeed demanding that a defence barrister be charged in the High Court for contempt of court for mentioning it in his closing statement (a charge now dismissed by the Appeal Court as beyond the judge’s jurisdiction) The whole thing is a show trial