How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography prosecution

Re:How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography pr... by nxzero on Wednesday April 06, 2016 @02:24PM (#11440667)

In the US, juries are not required to follow the law:

SOURCE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

RELATED TEXT: "A jury can similarly unjustly and illegally convict a defendant on the ground of disagreement with an existing law, even if no law is broken (although in jurisdictions with double jeopardy rules, a conviction can be overturned on appeal, but an acquittal cannot)."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography pr... by boosting7669 on Wednesday April 06, 2016 @02:36PM (#11440745)

I don't understand how this is relevant to my comment. Please explain

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography pr... by nxzero on Wednesday April 06, 2016 @02:54PM (#11440898)

Your comment appears to me to assume that if a jury knew someone was not guilt by law, that they would vote not guilt. My point is that a jury in the US can intentionally convict someone as guilty that they're aware is "legally" not guilty.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography pr... by boosting7669 on Wednesday April 06, 2016 @10:49PM (#11444334)

They can also intentionally acquit someone they know is guilty of the law simply because they don't think the law should exist, this is called jury nullification. My point was that the typical jury is just not sophisticated enough to understand how easy it is to plant digital evidence. I doubt they'd convict in a case like this believing the defendant to be innocent.

[ Parent | on HN ]