Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
The courts only hold that it's admissible. The defense can still argue the weight. And in a specific case the judge might exclude it as unduly prejudicial. And yes, atrocious prosecution (perhaps distracted by their affair, I dunno) and awful star witness. Leaving jury nullification aside, they may not have proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
There's a lot of cases where the prosecution doesn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but I really can't think of another non-political prosecution where the prosecution themselves were the ones who created the reasonable doubt. They had an easy case (leaving the nullification aside) and then made poor choice after poor choice to throw their own solid evidence into reasonable doubt.
I also can't think of a case with a more egregious use of jury nullification like this. I am a fan of the concept as a check on the state by the people but according to jurors themselves it wasn't evidence or reasonable doubt, they just decided it was okay to murder 2 people since the accused was black. Effectively nullification for double homicide, that's a unique one.