A man who attempted to vote twice in Virginia’s 2023 election was acquitted of attempted illegal voting on Monday, following his claims in court that he had been testing the system for voter fraud.

A Nelson County jury found 67-year-old Richardson Carter Bell Jr. not guilty of attempting to vote more than once in the same election. According to the Washington Post, Bell, a staunch supporter of former President Donald Trump, admitted voting early at his local registrar’s office only to also show up at a nearby polling place on Election Day.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    republican voter attempts fully conscious and premeditated fraud attempt, immediately caught/failed, admits to willful fraud, found not guilty, voter and lawyer hold hands and yell, “it’s rigged, stop the steal”

    Seriously, go read full transcript of statements from this fucking goon throughout the process. Outrageously stupid.

  • BigFig@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    2 days ago

    Wtf, meanwhile you can go to prison for a sting operation where a victim does not exist or the illegal item/items you are buying do not actually exist

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Someone should argue that every arrest made by undercover officers pretending to be prostitutes should be thrown out under this.

      Just because you said yes, or even paid, doesn’t mean you would have actually had sex, so you in reality could have just paid to “test” if the prostitute would actually agree.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Rob a liquor store with an unloaded gun but someone present has a heart attack? Murder.

      Rob a liquor store with an unloaded gun but the guy behind the counter pulls out a loaded one and kills your accomplise? Also murder.

      Buy some heroin for you and your partner to use, leading you both to overdose, but you survive? Believe it or not, also murder.

      e; Whether or not you think these make sense is beside the point, it’s an obvious double standard when the lack of intent doesn’t matter for these crimes but it gets this guy a walk

          • Pennomi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 days ago

            The hard part is that “direct” is subjective and up to interpretation of the court.

          • Grimy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            I would say the person doing the crime himself is to blame for his own death. I think there’s a difference between an accomplice and an innocent dying.

            But its a fine line, I agree, and also depends on other variables. If I start applying it to other examples:

            If you are trespassing in a train tunnel doing graffiti, the train comes and you get out but your buddy gets hit, is it murder? I’d say not really.

            If you’re racing and your buddy hits a tree, it’s not really murder either yet he wouldn’t of been racing alone. It’s a two player sport so I’d tend to say guilty.

            Would your buddy have stayed home instead of robbing the store if you weren’t there to help him, it’s hard to say but I’d tend to go not guilty.

            It also seems a bit vindictive but like I said, I understand the sentiment.

          • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            No, because it isn’t proportional.

            A homeless man stealing a bottle of water with a security guard shooting up half the store due to bad aim as a result should not be charged for murder.

            Besides, murder should always require intent to kill. Robbery - including armed robbery - does not usually imply this.

              • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                What if we alter the scenario slightly?

                The homeless man ran “aggressively” through the checkouts (without paying for the water bottle of course) and the police “believed” he had a knife to force his way through. Water bottles sure look like knifes sometimes after all.

                I’m fairly certain the homeless man would be charged with felony murder if the police shot bystanders (and the homeless man survived).

      • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        But these make sense. If someone is harmed in the process of you committing a crime, you are at least partly responsible for that harm. I agree with these, but I can see how they can be weaponized as well

        • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          I’d be fine with a conviction for armed robbery in either of those first two scenarios (and would excuse the store clerk from any charges because they didn’t know the weapon was unloaded so it’s reasonable self defense), but not murder. If we make everything a murder charge it just increases the incentive for robbers not to leave any witnesses.

          (On the other hand, if you rob someone with a loaded gun and just say you never intended to actually hurt anyone I could probably be persuaded to call it attempted murder).

  • notsure@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    2 days ago

    What happens if, and I use a strong IF, a democrat did this? Oh, yeah, honest mistakes aren’t allowed, but blatant flouting of laws is? do I need to put the /s?

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      It was a jury trial and the county went 51% trump four years ago…

      So depends on what the jury makeup is.

      • The Pantser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yup it’s only illegal if your peers deem it. Which is why you should always stick to areas where you are a commoner and not an outsider. Which is why I avoid the south like it’s radioactive.

      • From the linked washingtonpost article though ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/10/29/gop-voter-virginia-vote-twice/ : https://archive.is/U7AoW#selection-755.0-755.327 ), it sounds like the defense had a very good argument.

        Defense attorney Matthew L. Pack contended that Bell would not have gone through with voting more than once in the same election — a felony punishable by one to five years in prison — if poll workers had actually handed him a ballot.

        But he never got the chance to demonstrate that because

        As it happened, the workers quickly discovered that he had already voted and turned him away.

        Speaking neutrally, it’s good that we have a system in place that requires a high level of evidence - such as regarding intent - before finding someone guilty. I’d just hope that it equally protects folks regardless of if they are blue or red.

          • Oh, agreed. Should have a way to punish someone for trying (e.g. attempted murder charges because the police stopped the murder and saved the intended victim). But even then, one still has to be able to prove it, and the level of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt - is as high as it is for good reason.

            Now, if the accused had encountered police detectives at that polling station instead of real election workers, I imagine it would have gone like this:

            (Police detective posing as a poll worker prepares an otherwise blank but non-obviously spoiled ballot.)

            “Ok sir, here’s your ballot.”

            Choice A: “Thanks, here’s the ballot, yay I just voted.” “Sir, you’re under arrest.”

            Choice B: “Um… actually I already voted.” “Yes we know sir, I see it right here, but we were just testing you.” “No, hey, wait, I was trying to test you.” “…”

            It’s not a reasonable expectation to ask actual election workers - poll working volunteers - to do anything like the above, though.

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Dripping with remorse, no malicious intent to commit butter fraud and so very deserving of acquittal…

    “On Tuesday, the firm representing Bell, posted on Facebook: “Another NOT GUILTY on all charges!” Attached to the post was a photo of Bell wearing a red MAGA hat, referencing Trump’s “Make America Great Again” platform.”

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 days ago
    Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for Associated Press:

    Wiki: reliable - The Associated Press is a news agency. There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.


    MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America


    Search topics on Ground.News

    https://apnews.com/article/voters-virginia-election-trial-fraud-f622efe3df029186ca527f9a254c2ebe

    Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

  • meco03211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    So he apparently didn’t actually vote twice. He voted early. Then, on the day of the election he went to a polling place to attempt to vote again. When they looked up his name, they saw he had already voted and presumably didn’t allow him to vote again. Because he didn’t actually vote twice, there’s no way they’d be able to find him guilty of voting twice. That’d be like charging someone with murder where the victim is still alive. They ended up charging him with attempted voter fraud. And if he told them something like “Had they allowed me in and given me a ballot I would not have filled it out and voted again. I was just testing the system.” I could see people going easy on one of their own.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      We punish people for DUI’s harshly because they COULD cause harm. They get charges beyond the DUI when someone IS harmed. This is like saying a person drove a car at parade full speed but ran into a baracade. “I was just testing the baracade to make sure the people in the parade would be safe.”

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        But driving under the influence is literally the charge. There’s also reckless endangerment and other tack on charges. You couldn’t necessarily tack on attempted homicide, because intent is required.

        In this case, attempted voter fraud is literally the charge. Sentencing guidelines are a state level decision.

        That’s just how the law works. If you want more punishment for failed voter fraud, pressure the state to increase the sentencing guidelines.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          “was acquitted of attempted illegal voting”

          Maybe you read something different than I did. He was acquitted of attempting to do what he did.

          Therefore someone driving drunk, should be acquitted of driving drunk, right? That is worded as the attempt is the charge, not the act.

          Which is why I compared it to something that we ban because it could injure someone, and then change the charges when they do harm someone.

          • Wrench@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Ahh, I guess I misread. I thought they got convicted for attempted voter fraud but acquitted of voter fraud.

            Like I said, intent is a large part of the law. A lot of crimes don’t get charged because intent is a high threshold to prove. Just because it seems the intent is obvious, proving it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law is a very different matter.

          • meco03211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Except he didn’t vote twice. He got in line to do it. He was turned away. From there he could try to say he never actually intended to vote again and would have not filled out another ballot and submitted it.

            The drink driving analogy to this is walking to your vehicle while drunk with your keys in your hand. Or sitting in your vehicle. In many states and jurisdictions if you are sitting in the car even without keys or actual intent to drive you can be convicted of “DUI”.

            • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Charge: “Attempted voter fraud”

              That says nothing about voting twice, it says attempting.

              He showed up tried to vote, got denied, lied to the police saying that it wasn’t him, and then when he showed up to court obviously has to admit he did attempt to do so, but only did so because he was testing the system.

              What part did I miss?

              I’d say we can look up what the actual charge is listed as for that state, but honestly I think we might be better off not searching things about such right now.

              • meco03211@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                That says nothing about voting twice, it says attempting.

                Had you read the actual statute you’d have found “voter fraud” to be the actual act of voting twice. In another section the modifier attempted is defined as basically attempting a crime defined elsewhere. So you can complain about justice not being served all you want, but the jury was not convinced he would have voted twice. You can say you’d have convicted him even, but you weren’t on the jury. I’m not arguing whether he should or shouldn’t have been convicted. The original question that prompted this chain was how he wasn’t convicted. I was providing a simple explanation as to why. Accept it or not. The part you missed was the part you explicitly said you didn’t look into. The actual law on this issue.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      1 day ago

      Just a little more context, because the article is really light on the details. After he had been turned away, the cops showed up at his house to interview him and he denied that it was him and it must have been someone else. This defense only came up later after his arreest.

      It’s BS and I suspect the only reason he was let off is because the town is overwhelmingly red and the jury was packed with Trump supporters. And of course they don’t care about voter fraud when their side commits it, only when they imagine the other side is.

      • dirthawker0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        They think it’s okay to do because they think they need to “balance out” the enormous amounts of voter fraud they’re convinced is being committed by Democrats. The problem is, that’s a complete lie, the Dems have done nothing. Every news story I’ve read about voter fraud in this election cycle (3 or 4?) where they actually mention the party, it’s been a Republican.

  • korny@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    104
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m going to go buy some crack to test the system. Let’s see how that turns out for me.

    • TunaCowboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      If the majority of your county are crackheads and you opt for a jury trial you might just pull it off.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Laws are written in such a way that they don’t allow the jury to decide if what the person did was right or wrong, just if they did or did not do what was said.

        Do you agree they had a pipe in their possession? Yes - jail.

        Do you agree they had the drug on them?

        Yes -jail.

        The jury doesn’t get to decide if they think it was okay for them to have the pipe/drug on them. A lawyer does their best to spin it in a way that maybe makes it appear the officer illegally made a search to make all subsequent findings inadmissable and invalid for charging. Or that the possession was not actually the person. But usually it comes down to, we found this on your person… And conviction of possession.

          • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            From said page:

            In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: “There is no such thing as valid jury nullification.” In United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. In 2017, a jury was instructed: “You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case.” The Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury’s instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a harmless error and affirmed the conviction.[67]


            Looks like it will get messy about whether such would be allowed, and whether you yourself could catch trouble for ruling against the law.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          That’s what they want you to think. You can, in fact, decide you think the law is unjust and acquit. You can just feel bad for the defendant, or think the protection is being too harsh

          The judge isn’t going to tell you that, they’re going to tell you to follow their guidance

          You can’t be punished for a jury verdict, and you can’t be compelled to return a certain verdict

          Jury nullification

          • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Tuna Cowboy discussed that below, it appears there are cases that show otherwise listed on the link he sent. In theory that is how jury’s should work. From said page:

            In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: “There is no such thing as valid jury nullification.” In United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. In 2017, a jury was instructed: “You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case.” The Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury’s instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a harmless error and affirmed the conviction.[67]


            Looks like it will get messy about whether such would be allowed, and whether you yourself could catch trouble for ruling against the law.

            • theneverfox@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Reading through all of it, it’s exactly as I thought it was, but I kept the complexity out

              You cannot give jury instructions related to jury nullification. The judge can’t get anywhere near the topic, and lawyers cannot directly argue the jury should acquit based on the law being unjust (they can certainly imply it though)

              You cannot have already decided your verdict before the case, including based on the law involved. This is generally a moot point, because jury selection should catch this. If it doesn’t and you didn’t lie, then that’s on the judge

              So, they will never tell you that you have this power as a juror. But you do, in all cases

              The only complicated part is on the part of the judge and the defense

              • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                Yeah, much of the issues brought up seem to be tied to prohibition where if guilty charges increased dramatically (roughly from 3 to 30 percent) it would say they are entering with a predetermined thought of going against the law. The other common cases brought up were all tied to racism.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Wow, that’s a lot less than 5 years. And he even did it on purpose!!!
    The “testing” excuse is totally irrelevant, but he is white and he is Republican…

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    If this were British Columbia, before you vote you must make a declaration that you are eligible and did not vote already.

    If you voted earlier/somewhere else, you could choose to show up at any polling place later, as long as you do not make the false declaration to receive your second ballot, you will not have committed fraud. The election person can be like, oh the digital record shows you voted already, and you can walk out. In remote areas, the paper voter roll of local voters will show whether they know you voted or not but other paper locations will not (if your polling location was way out in the sticks and you went to another rural place to vote). Mail ins are much the same, your name and signature on the declaration is the same thing as the verbal affirmation.

    I know Trump’s supporters are bad at logic, but this should show that these processes stop enough voter fraud to the point that you it’s not really they need to get all worked up about.