Supreme Court expands meaning of 'seizure' under 4th Amendment

Re:Supreme Court expands meaning of 'seizure' under 4th Amen... by FpUser on Friday March 26, 2021 @01:59AM (#26589148)

One of the things SCOTUS said in regards to this particular case: "While jurors undoubtedly should be told to follow the law, the statement that there is no valid jury nullification misstates the role of nullification because an acquittal is valid, even if it resulted from nullification."

There is also no implied punishment so the judge in case overstepped.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court expands meaning of 'seizure' under 4th Amen... by cgriswald on Friday March 26, 2021 @02:15AM (#26589240)

I agree that the judge overstepped. The SCOTUS didn’t. They can say whatever they want in their decision but if a judge can say that jury nullification is invalid and the conviction is still upheld it means a judge can say that jury nullification is invalid.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court expands meaning of 'seizure' under 4th Amen... by FpUser on Friday March 26, 2021 @08:04AM (#26591049)

>"conviction is still upheld"

There was no nullification in that particular case. If there was judge can say whatever s/he wants but there would be no conviction.

[ Parent | on HN ]