Le 18/08/2012 18:40, Warp nous fit lire :
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
>> On 8/11/2012 5:52 AM, andrel wrote:
> 
>>> There is still a chance that he will get away with is with a light
>>> sentence.
> 
>> There is a chance that the jury will refuse to convict him.
> 
> Doesn't the American judicial system grant the judge the right to veto
> the jury's decision if it's clearly against the law? (In other words,
> even though the accused has been unambiguously established as having
> committed the crime, and the law unambiguously establishes a minimum
> punishment for such a crime, the jury, for whatever reason, absolves
> the accused for a reason not supported by the law. It could happen, and
> I'm pretty sure it has.)
> 
> Or is this only in some special cases?
> 

I thought, as seen on TV, that the jury of USA/states was only in charge
of "guilty/not guilty" question, and the judge was to set the sentence
(based on the ratio of the jury or the phase of the moon, and probably
about the declaration of the "candidate" ).

And maybe that the jury needed unanimity too ?
(all the TV episodes in which the last jury's member make an asshole of
himself and votes the opposite of the other... ?)

Post a reply to this message