I genuinely think that they’ll have a hard time finding an impartial jury… I think that at this point, pretty much anyone who doesn’t live under a rock has heard of him and has an opinion on whether he should be found guilty.
Regardless of which way you fall on that particular topic, you’re biased, and that would exclude you from serving on the jury.
I thought the same thing about the Trump trial, but they legitimately turned over rocks and found the most oblivious Americans living under them. There are evidently tons of people out there living in their own little bubble, completely untethered from the news media or even just casual conversations with strangers and probably have no idea who Luigi is right now. The news might not be able to reach them, but a jury summons from the state can, and the prosecution is going to hunt for these individuals specifically.
The defense can try to reject any juror that shows significant malice. Oftentimes both sides only have so many that they can strike from the potential juror pool unless the judge agrees there is enough bias to sway someone.
…and since this entire thread started because the judge is married to a previous executive of a healthcare* company, well, good luck Luigi defense.
Correct. And I strongly suspect they are wildly pumping out news about him to narrow the juror pool to people who do live under rocks.
The other option is that jurors lie about their bias, which opens them up for legal consequences.
His defense, in any case, has a very difficult task - they need to be able to somehow communicate him being innocent against stacked charges OR paint him light that the rest of us see that leans them towards Jury Nullification.
My hope is that potential jurors hide their bias, which isn’t easy, but gives him the best chance.
If they can find an “unbiased” jury, then the defense does indeed have a difficult challenge ahead. Even if the prosecution fails with their terrorism charge, they can fall back on murder 2, which is much harder to defend against.
I genuinely think that they’ll have a hard time finding an impartial jury… I think that at this point, pretty much anyone who doesn’t live under a rock has heard of him and has an opinion on whether he should be found guilty.
Regardless of which way you fall on that particular topic, you’re biased, and that would exclude you from serving on the jury.
I thought the same thing about the Trump trial, but they legitimately turned over rocks and found the most oblivious Americans living under them. There are evidently tons of people out there living in their own little bubble, completely untethered from the news media or even just casual conversations with strangers and probably have no idea who Luigi is right now. The news might not be able to reach them, but a jury summons from the state can, and the prosecution is going to hunt for these individuals specifically.
The 65+ crowd view him unfavorably, so I expect the jury to be a bunch of 65+ people
An unfavorable view is still bias. The defense would reject any juror that shows significant malice towards the plaintiff.
The defense can try to reject any juror that shows significant malice. Oftentimes both sides only have so many that they can strike from the potential juror pool unless the judge agrees there is enough bias to sway someone.
…and since this entire thread started because the judge is married to a previous executive of a healthcare* company, well, good luck Luigi defense.
I’ve spoken with friends about this is Denmark, and we all read the news with great pleasure.
Correct. And I strongly suspect they are wildly pumping out news about him to narrow the juror pool to people who do live under rocks.
The other option is that jurors lie about their bias, which opens them up for legal consequences.
His defense, in any case, has a very difficult task - they need to be able to somehow communicate him being innocent against stacked charges OR paint him light that the rest of us see that leans them towards Jury Nullification.
My hope is that potential jurors hide their bias, which isn’t easy, but gives him the best chance.
That’s almost impossible to prove, and almost never prosecuted.
There are plenty of nevers and almost nevers with this case already, so it’s not unreasonable to worry that there might be more.
They’re trying to use fear to spin a story against this guy. They’re going to use fear when telling them about lying under oath.
They’re going to use fear the whole way, it’s their only weapon.
It’s why they are so afraid. A lot of us see through it, and see their real fear.
If they can find an “unbiased” jury, then the defense does indeed have a difficult challenge ahead. Even if the prosecution fails with their terrorism charge, they can fall back on murder 2, which is much harder to defend against.
Oh, I already have a simple solution to that.
I ain’t seen nothin in that video.
Let’s all do our best impression of Johnny tightlips whenever anyone with a badge or a gavel asks about Luigi.
“Hey Eddie, good to see ya. How’s your mother?”
“Who says i got a mutha?”
“Tell 'im to suck a lemon.”