In the wake of the killing, widespread public animosity towards health insurers ― and UnitedHealthcare specifically ― may explain why the company quickly limited who could comment on their tribute to Thompson.
Still, people still found a way to express how they felt ― to the tune of more than 90,000 laughing reactions as of Friday.
Yeah, I guess. Does it pertain to first degree murder? And could it just devolve into a juridical fight? 'cause then I think it turns into whoever has more money to spend wins, so… What I’m suggesting is that we, the people, agree all-together to not rat the gunman (or -woman) out to the pigs.
Jury nullification isn’t some official* legal procedure or anything, it’s just the principle that a jury can choose to find someone not-guilty for reasons outside of the facts of the case at hand - they may think the law being broken is unjust, or they may think the punishment for the crime is too harsh, or they may just be protesting the legal system in general. It’s possible because generally two things are true about a trial ruled on by a jury of peers - a jury can’t be punished for an “incorrect” verdict, and a defendant can’t be tried for the same crime twice.
Jury nullification is most likely not going to happen. Speaking about it during selection will get you booted from selection, and being too obvious that it’s your intent will get you booted.
With that said, it always is possible, even with a murder case like this. It is the logical consequence of a legal system such as ours were the jury cannot be forced to give a specific verdict, and the defendant cannot be tried twice.
