• Sharkticon@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      15 hours ago

      There’s no way in this world he would get a fair jury. Any member of that jury will absolutely be bribed and or threatened.

    • Ariselas@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      152
      ·
      1 day ago

      Even if his defense was that he only killed a CEO and not a person, I’d acquit him.

    • blackfire@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 day ago

      If his defense droped a few stories of other people being ruined by the insurance industry an just kept hammering it home he totally could

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 day ago

      If the jury was all Lemmings then for sure. But people here aren’t as representative of the general public as they think they are. Older Americans in particular are not down with Luigi.

      • mercano@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 day ago

        It only takes one person intent on nullification to hang a jury. The prosecution can retry the case, but they have to decide if it’s worth it.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        All the old people on my social media stopped short of explicitly praising murder, but none of them objected to people saying it was cool and most said they understood. Old people, while more conservative are also more likely to have an insurance horror story of their own or someone they know. Even my the MAGA boomer acquaintance treated it with humor rather than tragedy.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      If juries were fairly selected he’d 100% get jury nullification…

      Which is why it wasn’t going to happen organically in the current selection.

      It’s like how to beat “straw purchase” gun laws: you just have to lie.

      If you’ve heard of it as a concept, that’s enough to take you off. To the point it’s been a strategy for a long time of people who want to avoid jury duty. It doesn’t always work, because most of the time they don’t really care

      Something like this, the government isn’t letting anyone on who knows what it is, and especially today would investigate anyone who suddenly “learned about it” after being selected.

      So to be clear:

      1. It should have worked.

      2. It wouldn’t have.

      Like, we’d have need Mario to get on the jury while wearing an obvious disguise, and they’d be taking almost as much of a risk as player 2. It just wasn’t likely.

      I’m super interested in his reasoning for this, but I’d be really surprised if they let him do interviews anytime soon, and what matters more than us knowing is his legal strategies working. We just gotta wait and see.

      • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        24 hours ago

        I have lied about my intentions on every jury and I tell my loved ones to do the same.

        Don’t disclose it ahead of time, obviously.

        They can investigate it all they like, but all you have to do is never say the phrase “jury nullification” and start talking about how you’re not sure this should be a crime at all. I’m not saying it would necessarily work, but it’s not as though jury nullification is a wild thing that only exists in the US, it’s a fundamental part of how juries work- acknowledging it isn’t suspicious (again, without the name).