My education is in the works. Is this actually an example of jury nullification? Like, what he did was actually illegal, but the jury presumably, thought the law was unjust? Or is throwing a sandwich at ICE just not illegal?
It is, by the letter of the law, assault (and battery, if that’s a separate thing there). But the jury is not bound in any way as to whether they find a defendant guilty or not guilty.
There was a pretty locally big felony murder case. Some Norteños jumped some Sureños. The Norteños had bats. One of the Sureños had a gun. One of the Norteños died.
Now, under stone principle I don’t understand and can’t remember what it’s called, when you start committing a crime, any crimes that occur as a direct consequence are attributable to the party that began the illegal actions. So the Norteños went on trial for felony murder for shooting their own fellow gang member (since the Sureños could reasonably argue self defense and the DA wanted to do something about gang violence, they prosecuted the Norteños) even though a Sureño pulled the trigger.
I learned it’s difficult to get a conviction from a fair jury for felony murder when you “started it”. They were acquitted.
Not a lawyer but my reading of it is that, in other context, this fact pattern could theoretically lead to a conviction. It is hard to imagine a sandwich causing actual harm, though, so it is probably unethical to have even brought charges knowing it is such bullshit.
My education is in the works. Is this actually an example of jury nullification? Like, what he did was actually illegal, but the jury presumably, thought the law was unjust? Or is throwing a sandwich at ICE just not illegal?
He threw an object in hostility at a (supposed) federal employee, which could be assault. Jury said no, because they can.
It is, by the letter of the law, assault (and battery, if that’s a separate thing there). But the jury is not bound in any way as to whether they find a defendant guilty or not guilty.
There was a pretty locally big felony murder case. Some Norteños jumped some Sureños. The Norteños had bats. One of the Sureños had a gun. One of the Norteños died.
Now, under stone principle I don’t understand and can’t remember what it’s called, when you start committing a crime, any crimes that occur as a direct consequence are attributable to the party that began the illegal actions. So the Norteños went on trial for felony murder for shooting their own fellow gang member (since the Sureños could reasonably argue self defense and the DA wanted to do something about gang violence, they prosecuted the Norteños) even though a Sureño pulled the trigger.
I learned it’s difficult to get a conviction from a fair jury for felony murder when you “started it”. They were acquitted.
Not a lawyer but my reading of it is that, in other context, this fact pattern could theoretically lead to a conviction. It is hard to imagine a sandwich causing actual harm, though, so it is probably unethical to have even brought charges knowing it is such bullshit.