AZ - rancher charged in killing of trespassing serially-deported migrant

[susano]

...

Help me out here. I'd never thought the deadlocked jury thing before but if just one juror won't agree to a guilty verdict, isn't that an automatic acquittal? What's the difference with a hung jury?

 

[acptulsa]

Help me out here. I'd never thought the deadlocked jury thing before but if just one juror won't agree to a guilty verdict, isn't that an automatic acquittal? What's the difference with a hung jury?

A unanimous verdict stands. Otherwise it's a mistrial, and up to the prosecutor whether they try again.

So, no, an entire jury doesn't have to agree to nullify to very possibly do a little jury nullification.

 

[susano]

A unanimous verdict stands. Otherwise it's a mistrial, and up to the prosecutor whether they try again.

So, no, an entire jury doesn't have to agree to nullify to very possibly do a little jury nullification.

Man, I must be a real dope because I thought all it took for an acquittal was one juror refusing to convict. Either that or I'm a space case and forgot how trials work. Heck I watched every day of OJ and Casey Anthony, lol. I should know this because of previous hung juries in the news. A mistrial makes me nervous for the AZ man because if it's a woke prosecutor, they'll persist.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Man, I must be a real dope because I thought all it took for an acquittal was one juror refusing to convict. Either that or I'm a space case and forgot how trials work. Heck I watched every day of OJ and Casey Anthony, lol. I should know this because of previous hung juries in the news. A mistrial makes me nervous for the AZ man because if it's a woke prosecutor, they'll persist.

He's toast anyways.

Even if acquitted on the state charges, the feds will come in and file some bullshit "he violated the invader's human rights" charges.

And they have a 94 percent conviction rate.

"Fifth amendment? Never heard of it...move along prole."

 

[sparebulb]

He's toast anyways.

Even if acquitted on the state charges, the feds will come in and file some bull$#@! "he violated the invader's human rights" charges.

And they have a 94 percent conviction rate.

"Fifth amendment? Never heard of it...move along prole."

Agreed.

Plus, they bankrupt people if they win or lose.

Just see who ends up with his property when this is over.

 

[Occam's Banana]

He's toast anyways.

Even if acquitted on the state charges, the feds will come in and file some bullshit "he violated the invader's human rights" charges.

And they have a 94 percent conviction rate.

"Fifth amendment? Never heard of it...move along prole."

//

Fewer than [half of] 1% of federal criminal defendants were acquitted in 2022
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...ederal-criminal-cases-were-acquitted-in-2022/
{John Gramlich | 14 June 2023}

Former President Donald Trump pleaded not guilty this week to federal criminal charges related to his alleged mishandling of classified documents after his departure from the White House in 2021. The unprecedented charges against Trump and his subsequent plea raise the question: How common is it for defendants in federal criminal cases to plead not guilty, go to trial and ultimately be acquitted?

In fiscal year 2022, only 290 of 71,954 defendants in federal criminal cases – about 0.4% – went to trial and were acquitted, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the latest available statistics from the federal judiciary. Another 1,379 went to trial and were found guilty (1.9%).

The overwhelming majority of defendants in federal criminal cases that year did not go to trial at all. About nine-in-ten (89.5%) pleaded guilty, while another 8.2% had their case dismissed at some point in the judicial process, according to the data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

These statistics include all defendants charged in U.S. district courts with felonies and serious misdemeanors, as well as some defendants charged with petty offenses. They do not include federal defendants whose cases were handled by magistrate judges or the much broader universe of defendants in state courts. Defendants who entered pleas of “no contest,” in which they accept criminal punishment but do not admit guilt, are also excluded. The 2022 federal fiscal year began Oct. 1, 2021, and ended Sept. 30, 2022.

The U.S. Justice Department indicted Trump earlier this month on 37 counts relating to seven criminal charges: willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record, corruptly concealing a document or record, concealing a document in a federal investigation, scheme to conceal, and false statements and representations.

Trump’s case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where acquittal rates look similar to the national average. In fiscal 2022, only 12 of 1,944 total defendants in the Southern District of Florida – about 0.6% – were acquitted at trial. As was the case nationally, the vast majority of defendants in Florida’s Southern District (86.2%) pleaded guilty that year, while 10.7% had their cases dismissed.

It’s not clear from the federal judiciary’s statistics how many other defendants nationally or in the Southern District of Florida faced the same or similar charges that Trump is facing or how those cases ended.

Broadly speaking, however, the charges against Trump are rare. In fiscal 2022, more than eight-in-ten federal criminal defendants in the United States faced charges related to one of four other broad categories of crime: drug offenses (31%), immigration offenses (25%), firearms and explosives offenses (16%) or property offenses (11%). In Florida’s Southern District, too, more than eight-in-ten defendants faced charges related to these four categories.

Trump, of course, is not a typical federal defendant. He is the first former president ever to face federal criminal charges and is running for president again in 2024. The federal case against Trump is still in its early stages, and it’s unclear when – or whether – it will proceed to trial.

Well yeah if they kept slapping an overabundance of charges on any of us, eventually they could probably build a case.

That's exactly how they do it. They slather on the charges ("three felonies a day"), accumulating longer potential terms of incarceration - so defendants (who do not have the effectively "infinite" resources available to the feds) are strongly incentivized to accept deals in which they plead "guilty" in order to reduce or avoid lengthier prison sentences (keeping in mind that there is no parole for federal convictions).

The only alternative is to imagine that federal prosecutors are (1) so extremely competent that they are able to win even the iffiest cases (so much so that even innocent defendants feel compelled to acquiesce), or (2) so extremely restrained that they only ever take on cases that are obvious "slam dunks" (so much so that even guilty defendants feel compelled to acquiesce).

 

[Anti Federalist]

//

My mistake comrade...99 percent.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Prosecutors say they will not retry an Arizona rancher accused of murder near the US-Mexico border

https://apnews.com/article/us-mexic...n=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

BY ANITA SNOW
Updated 7:34 PM GMT-5, April 29, 2024

PHOENIX (AP) — Prosecutors said Monday they will not retry an Arizona rancher whose trial in the fatal shooting of a Mexican man on his property ended last week with a deadlocked jury.

The jurors in the trial of George Alan Kelly were unable to reach a unanimous decision on a verdict after more than two days of deliberation. Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Thomas Fink declared a mistrial on April 22.

After the mistrial, the Santa Cruz County Attorney’s Office had the option to retry Kelly — or to drop the case.

“Because of the unique circumstances and challenges surrounding this case, the Santa Cruz County Attorney’s Office has decided not to seek a retrial,” Deputy County Attorney Kimberly Hunley told Fink Monday.

Fink agreed to dismiss the case. He said a hearing would be scheduled later to determine if it would be dismissed with prejudice, which would mean it couldn’t be brought back to court.

Kelly’s defense attorney Brenna Larkin told the judge that she would file a request for the case to be dismissed with prejudice.

Larkin did not immediately return a request for comment sent by email after the ruling.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/TexasLindsay_/status/1785056612454932659

 

[Anti Federalist]

https://x.com/ClownWorld_/status/1811053806454481374