If Trump somehow proves his innocence and that wasn’t his voice on the phone asking Raffensberger to find more votes, then I’ll admit he shouldn’t go to jail for it.
Now, if it’s shown it is him, will you admit that he should?
Trump is documented on audio tape doing exactly what he is accused of doing. In the absence of any reasonable explanation that the voice heard on the tape is not actually his, that’s enough evidence to support a conviction.
Jury nullification works both ways. I wonder if there will be any published opinions encouraging or condemning jury nullification verdicts favoring the prosecution.
Absolutely. Traditionally the conservative/federalist society types have argued that there’s no such thing, while bleeding heart liberals have argued its inherent in a democratic society. I expect that to flip.
Published opinions on jury nullification would be fascinating.
I’m feeling stupid. What is jury nullification favoring the prosecution? Is it simply finding a defendant guilty despite overwhelming evidence of innocence?
It could be, but in that instance you’d think the judge would dismiss the case before it gets to the jury. I took Geezer’s comment to be it goes both ways politically.
Yes. There are a lot of examples of nullification acquittals. I can’t think of a specific well known example of a nullification conviction, but it certainly does occur.