California
Welcome to /c/California, an online haven that brings to life the unrivaled diversity and vibrancy of California! This engaging community offers a virtual exploration of the Golden State, taking you from the stunning Pacific coastline to the rugged Sierra Nevada, and every town, city, and landmark in between. Discover California's world-class wineries, stunning national parks, innovative tech scene, robust agricultural heartland, and culturally diverse metropolises.
Discussions span a wide range of topics—from travel tips and restaurant recommendations to local politics and environmental issues. Whether you're a lifelong resident, a recent transplant, or planning your dream visit, /c/California is your one-stop place to share experiences, ask questions, and celebrate all the things that make California truly unique.
Related Communities:
Nearby Communities:
- California
- Bakersfield, CA
- Bay Area, CA
- Burbank, CA
- Fresno, CA
- Long Beach, CA
- Los Angeles, CA
- Oakland, CA
- San Diego, CA
- San Jose, CA
- San Francisco, CA
- Sacramento, CA
- Santa Clarita, CA
view the rest of the comments
I hope it was nullification
Given what he was charged with, the jury's conclusion is entirely reasonable. Towing illegally parked cars is standard practice in the industry. I don't think its reasonable to conclude the result was from nullification.
Oh yeah I wasn’t concluding, I was hoping from a position of ignorance. Your take seems completely reasonable.
For it to be nullification, the prosecutor would have to have brought an otherwise winning case. The feds no longer have comptent attorneys. They couldn't even get a grand jury to indict a man for throwing a ham sandwich. The administration's only wins come from the one court with no ethics rules.
Nullification would be nice, but unlikely to come up.
The thing about jury nullification is you don't just shout "jury nullification" to use it. It's a quirk of the system in that the jury gets to decide if someone is guilty, or not, of breaking a law, for any reason. The justification they give won't be "jury nullification." It'll be something that argues that it was justified.
Honest question, having never been on a jury, do they really have to give an explanation at all? I thought the foreman just came out and gave the judge a note saying guilty or not guilty for each charge.
I haven't either, but my understanding is that no, they don't have to give a reason. They just give the verdict. They'll be asked a reason by the press though, which would be the actual argument for letting them off, not just that they nullified it.