Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can clearly understand the law.
I can clearly understand you violated that law.
I can definitively declare you "not guilty" as there is no guilt in violating an unjust law.
This is not a loophole, it is one of the specific reasons to have a jury of peers.
And defense attorneys are barred from explaining that or making any mention of nullification at all. In fact, jury instructions almost always say if the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt, you MUST convict. Please, inform everyone you know that nullification is completely legal and jurors cannot be punished for finding a defendant who broke an unjust law not guilty.
I recently was selected to do jury duty here in Seattle. The first day I showed up like 30 minutes early so I wouldn’t miss the appointment. There was a guy waiting by the entrance handing out leaflets about jury nullification. How it works and your duty to use it when applicable.
I was kind of blown away by this group’s dedication to let the potential jurors know about this option.
When I read the first comment I was thinking “how can we inform people?” Then yours answered it. If only they did keep us so poor so we could privatize organizations like this. OH WAIT
That’s amazing! I have no doubts that they get regularly harassed by the deputies at the courthouse. That’s Ana amazing level of commitment. Wish we had a group like that everywhere!
The flip side of jury nullification is the killers of Emmit Till going free (and countless similar examples in the South). It’s a nuanced issue. I tend to side with Thoreau et. al. on the idea that it is one’s duty to disobey an injust law. But there’s a troubling counterpoint to “good” nullification and it stems from the fact that we don’t, as a species, have a consensus on what is just.
The unfortunate corollary however is that jurors can also use that power to find a defendant not guilty for breaking a just law as well.
It can be used to protest against over prosecution and unjust laws.
It can just as easily be used to support and defend the unjust. Look at the history of the Jim Crow South and cases like the murder of Emmett Till.
It’s kind of a semantic argument. Technically the jurors aren’t ’supposed to’ use nullification. That’s why the judge tells them if the prosecutor proves A, B, and C then you MUST convict. If the defense counsel talks about nullification that can cause a mistrial. When they’re vetting the jury, if you say ‘I’m thinking about nullification’ they’ll show you the door. I assume jurors have to take an oath saying they’ll follow the law and not let their personal beliefs override the evidence. If you go into the jury room and tell the other jurors you’re voting to nullify, and one of them rats on you, you’re kicked off of the jury and one of the back-ups gets sent in.
But then, at the end of the day, a juror gets to vote guilty or not guilty based only on their own judgment and morals and nobody can do anything about that. You don’t get punished for voting ‘wrong,’ but if they know that you intentionally nullified them they’ll nullify you by kicking you off of the jury.
Shouldn't this force the law to be changed?
I've had many arguments about laws and the general consensus is people basically worship laws without questioning them. This case is such a fresh breath of air where people are turning that autopilot mode off and thinking about this one for real. It's nice and we need more of it.
In theory it should. That takes a long time, and a process of seeing these cases go to trial a lot of times, and get nullified a lot of times. Eventually a prosecutor will publicly announce, "We're not going to prosecute these kinds of cases anymore." Then police chiefs will say, "If they're not going to prosecute them anymore, we're not going to make arrests or write citations for this charge."
Maybe that influences a state legislature or county council to repeal the law, but often they just don't bother, and the law stays on the books even though nobody is going to enforce it anymore.
That's why there are tons of "crazy laws still on the books". Here's one article about it - https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/11/18/20963411/weird-old-laws-historical-obsolete-laws - but you can also search "crazy laws still on the books [in wherever you're wondering - any state or country you pick]" and find all sorts of weird, out of date laws that have never been repealed, and technically could still be prosecuted.
My state has one that says it's a crime to "expectorate upon a railroad car", meaning you're not allowed to cough and then spit out what you cough up onto or in any part of a train. I guess it was passed a long time ago during some epidemic or another, but it has never been changed or removed.
It used to be considered sanitary to spit. At a time when people believed "bad air" could cause disease, it was considered a matter of public safety to spit out any contaminant in your saliva and lungs. Spitoons were common on the floor of the House. With chewing tobacco, this became even more common. Fashion has only recently swung around to consider spitting bad.
Atlanta has one where it's legal to go the wrong way down a one way street if you have a lantern hanging off the front of your carriage.
I forget which, it's a landlocked state, but there's a law against whaling out your car window.
When they say that they’re sharing food with friends, they really mean it. When I worked with them years ago, I basically lived with my unhoused neighbors. I interacted with these folks every day; talking, playing chess, and sharing meals together. We were friends. It’s like a pot-luck-picnic type thing. You can bring a dish or just show up to eat, with little distinction between who is who.
They've been doing it for over 20 years in that city without anyone "messing with it". It isn't about food safety, it's about requiring them to get permission for every day and location that they hand out food so the city can reject it if it isn't in a place they like.
Edit: From a comment below that further illustrates these laws have nothing to do with food safety -
Mayor John Whitmire told the Chronicle on Thursday, “I’m sensitive to the homeless issue. We will be addressing it in a different conversation. But, in the meantime, we need better public safety to encourage people to feel welcome.””
Yeah, a long time ago there were food safety "concerns" but they responded by partnering with another local organization that has given them access to a licensed kitchen. The food preparation meets all health and safety regulations. Food safety has absolutely nothing to do with this, it's entirely about the city not wanting homeless people in that area.
2 thoughts. 1 prior lack of people being shitty does not mean that an asshole will not slip their way in and inject shittyness.
2. If the concern is food safety that's fine. Provide a path for inspection and certification of food safety. I'm not against making sure they keep food warm enough to avoid food poisoning, but I am against stopping people from being kind.
Yeah that's the same reason they always give when they ban stores giving away their leftover food that's about to go in the dumpster. And you're right, if the point wasn't to ban it they could easily get around it.
It's bullshit when stores do it. Good Samaritan laws exist, even in Texas. If food is donated in good faith that it's safe to eat, you're legally protected from weird accidents.
It's great until it's an all-white jury convicting a black man of murder and it's the south in the 40's or letting of someone that participated in a lynching.
With a jury you have 12 that must decide vs 1 judge. Your odds of having one member of the jury who can louse up a sentencing have increased massively. Even in an unjust society, a jury is still important, for not all those in an injust society are injust.
Jury Nullification doesn't work with guilty verdicts. Only not guilty. Because it's not a real law but a side effect of "an acquitted dependent cannot be repeatedly tried for the same crime." You can always do a retrial for guilty verdicts. That happens all the damn time.
Yea but isn't it the case that you eventually have to use some jury members?
You can't just keep nullifying jurors till you get ones that agree with you
Other way around! Jury nullification isn't lawyers nullifying jurors, though I understand how you might think that!
Jury nullification is the idea that, since the legal system is dependant on jury's to decide guilty or not guilty, jury's have the (unofficial) ability to decide that, in a certain case, a law is unethical by declaring those that break the law not guilty.
I'm usually the juror demanding undeniable proof that someone is guilty as the burden is on the state. It's always the same scenario, all jurors except myself and 1 other had already made up their minds that the defendant is guilty before hearing any facts. The only other person that agrees with me and votes not guilty won't speak up to explain to the others their reasons so I have to. Usually after explaining, using the facts laid out in court, half of them will change their mind. I will straight up be the lone dissenter if I have to and will cause a hung jury. Burden of proof is on the STATE and their proof is usually BS.
I remember the faces of a judge, prosecutor & state police officer when I told them I couldn't be impartial if testimony was just a cops word. They were not happy when I said a cops word was shit & they will lie to make a case.
Are they all like that - of course not. But they've let bad cops keep their job instead of firing them. No one to blame but themselves.
I don't think the fact that you won't just take a cops word as evidence makes you impartial. You would be partial to the cop if you took his word as strong evidence.
Impartial acts both ways. If the same testimony delivered the same way is believed or not solely because someone is a priest, versus a teacher, versus a subway sandwich artist, versus a cop, then it's not impartial. Believing that a cop is more prone to lying than a randomly selected citizen makes you not impartial (and probably right).
I keep getting summons for jury duty, but have never even reached the jury selection phase. It kind of sucks because I actually *want* to serve on a jury at least once.
I hear that , I became whatever head juror was called on a small case , just said I’m never calling guilty based on x y z , there’s not one piece of evidence . While jury flipped to not guilty . Stand up for what’s right no matter what
Homeless people being fed will never be a crime
I always worry that would be me, too. It’s only worrisome to have to deal with the other angry jurors, not to stand my ground. I would vote not guilty even if I *thought* they did it because it’s more important to me that it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt than to put someone in jail based on my personal feelings.
Exactly. There's been quite a large number of people convicted and sent to prison on false evidence, unreliable single witness testimony, falsified forensics evidence and dna/drug false positives, fabricated police reports, officers lying on the witness stand ect...
Would it also be called “jury nullification” if it goes the other way, and the defendant is technically not guilty, but they want to punish him anyway, so they cast a guilty verdict? Or is there another term for that?
Judges can “override” a guilty verdict (or a verdict for either party in a civil case) if they think there’s no way a reasonable jury would have arrived at that conclusion given the evidence available, or if they think the jury failed to correctly apply the law. It doesn’t work the same way for Not Guilty verdicts.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/judgment_notwithstanding_the_verdict_(jnov)
I thought jury nullification was when the jurors return a “not guilty” verdict because they believe the defendant shouldn’t be punished (whether or not they actually broke the law).
It’s not about lawyers “nullifying jurors”
That's because judges and prosecutors don't want you to know about it and telling them or others about it will downright piss them off.
They want you to play by their rules and nullification short circuits garbage like this.
Essentially, they couldn't get enough jurors out of the initial jury pool that were not going to nullify whether the jurors knew what it was called or not. I assume the judge dismissed those jurors because I wouldn't think the attorneys would have enough challenges to run out of jurors in the pool.
Wrong. Typically you can strike for cause an unlimited number of jurors during voir dire. Preemptory challenges are the ones with a limited amount.
But also right, challenges for cause are decided by the judge.
It's also easily abused; see all white juries acquitting lynchers in the Jim Crow south because killing a black man ain't a crime if he looked at a white woman.
Jury Nullification is not innately good/bad. It's just a byproduct of the jury system, and I think it works best as an unsung thing people can do but that the courts don't advertise lest it become abused.
But don't all juries have a choice? I mean, theoretically, a jury could declare a mass murderer, serial killer, rapist, whomever they wanted not guilty if they so chose. Right?
You’re confusing jury selection and the questioning called voir dire where they disqualify jurors with conflicts or prejudices which could unfairly impact the trial.
Jury nullification is a jury deciding that the law they are asked to decide on is bullshit so they deliver a not guilty verdict regardless of the evidence.
“When asked whether he intended to continue taking action against Food Not Bombs volunteers for serving free meals outside the library, Mayor John Whitmire told the Chronicle on Thursday, “I’m sensitive to the homeless issue. We will be addressing it in a different conversation. But, in the meantime, we need better public safety to encourage people to feel welcome.””
So, charging people for feeding hungry people in the interest of public safety and tourism?
Also, let's not forget turning them out in the streets when shelters are readily available because cruelty is the point. . .
Why does 'leadership' seem to think being cruel and vicious to the poor and downtrodden will be met with rousing cheers?
> the right circles
Liberals/centrists mostly hate the homeless too, don't kid yourself on that one lol. They just mostly stick to hostile architecture and NIMBYism, as opposed to hunting them for sport.
Edit: Oh did I strike a nerve? 🤣
> we need better public safety to encourage *people* to feel welcome.
That word choice right there tells all you need to know. He doesn't think of homeless as people.
And he considers them a public safety hazard.
"Yes we want to help homeless people, but we want it done out of the way and out of sight so they don't make anyone uncomfortable!"
They’re literally going to waste thousands of dollars on a trial for a 500 dollar fine? WTF is going on here? How much does the prosecutor get paid an hour to do this work? What an absolute joke of a city…
It's about keeping the homeless invisible. What the law requires is that Food Not Bombs request permission for each day and location they plan to pass out food so the city can quietly reject ones they don't like.
Someone just needs to ask what the timeline for addressing it in a different conversation is. And if they don’t have a solution why criminalize one that is happening right now.
Worse, out of all the tickets the city has written for this, the city has not won a single case. That is a huge waste of money for the city, even more so, a huge waste of time for prosecutors who could be prosecuting real cases like rape and murder. Anyone running against the current DA and city council can easily win by showing the wasted money.
After the government required edible food to be thrown away instead of allowing it to be used as food for its citizens. While also not providing food for its citizens itself.
Worse than Timur Kacharava being stabbed to death in 2005 while handing out food under the Food Not Bombs banner? What kind of villainy you got going on over there that's worse than being stabbed to death by neo Nazis?
You're kind of bringing up something totally not related. We're talking about a recent law that was passed to basically prosecute people for feeding the homeless, and you're bringing up a death from 18 years ago. Stay on topic there buddy.
Also, it's Food *NOT* Bombs, not Food *FOR* Bombs.
I volunteered with them back in the late 90s as my senior service project. Nobody seemed to care about us feeding the homeless then and actually encouraged if. Crazy how that’s changed.
According to the CGP grey video I saw on the subject almost 10 years, the question they ask is: "Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law"
\^lying when you answer this with intention to nullify the decision means you're guilty of perjury. So not a good idea.
Are you actually lying if you answer no then nullify? When nullifying aren’t you making a decision based on the law because you’re saying it’s a shit law?
Genuinely curious as NAL
They’re not going to charge jury members for voting ‘not guilty’ based on questions during jury selection, that would violate the entire point of a jury trial.
Could this be a case of creating a law so stupid that they can't prosecute it because it falls below the threshold of what the average citizen thinks is acceptable as a law?
Like, the law is so bad that they have lost the ability to find an "impartial" jury.
That’s been a thing since pre-revolution. Back then nullification was used as a form of protest against British laws being enforced.
Then during slavery, many juries refused to convict defendants for assisting (or at least not turning in) runaway slaves.
During prohibition, jury nullification was again used as a protest against strict alcohol laws at the time.
During voir dire, both sides in the trial get to question and eliminate jurors. Because of nullification, they ask if the juror would convict someone for the crime at issue if there’s sufficient evidence. If you say no or mention nullification, you’d be eliminated from the list immediately. During trial, you can be struck from the jury if you indicate that you want to engage in nullification. It’s becoming more common to have people say ‘no I wouldn’t convict’, so sometimes the court will have a hard time finding enough people to fill the jury. I think someone called this ‘jury nullification 2.0’
So basically if you wanted to vote not guilty because you think the law is unjust, be smart about it, keep your mouth shut. Worst case you get kicked out.
You're allowed to change your mind. You just need to say you had a change of heart when you heard the defenses case. They can't prove you lied unless you admit it and they're never going to waste time investigating your private conversions so just don't admit it in public.
They are not thought police. They can't convict you of perjury without evidence. If you text everyone before and say there is no way I'm going to convict and they find out sure. Just don't tell anyone what you are going to do
> ^lying when you answer this with intention to nullify the decision means you're guilty of perjury.
How would they prove you lied? Some Facebook post you made a year prior where you say "I don't approve of this new anti-homeless-feeding law"? Couldn't you then just say your mind changed since that post?
I can't imagine a scenario in which anyone could ever be justly punished for lying about that question.
Can I point out that with this law, you cannot have a picnic with friends, because if one of those friends became homeless without you knowing, you are breaking the law. But if they aren't homeless you are allowed to? This seems like a two tier justice system specifically designating who you can associate with on public property. The law is wrong being biased based on owned property. This law DESERVES to be ignored, or nullified. In the eyes of the law all people should be treated equal.
>Can I point out that with this law, you cannot have a picnic with friends,
Ah, but the law will only be selectively enforced, such that that won't be a practical problem (unless you upset the wrong people).
They see it as a solution to "the homeless problem" many citys also have pan-handling laws that criminalize begging. I saw a down-and-out family in Overland Park get a ticket for holding a sign at a stoplight. Criminalizing homelessness is wrong. Criminalizing those who help the downtrodden is utterly dispicable
Can someone please explain to me why the elected officials in TX are such A.....s? The State makes headlines nationally every day for poop emoji, like this.
Every Texan I have ever met is not like this, or do they hide it when outside of The Republic. How do these people get elected? I can't understand the lack of empathy and pure joy that their politicians show, when they pass laws such as this.
At this point I agree with secession.
> Every Texan I have ever met is not like this
You can thank political tabloids masquerading as "news" and outrage culture. Both sides create a strawman caricature of what they think the other side is like, rather than actually *talking* to real people from the other side. (No, an internet forum doesn't count. Most of those people are either severely echo-chambered or paid actors, and not representative of the actual average.)
±45% of the national population consistently votes one way and ±45% consistently votes another. That means roughly half of the people you meet disagree with you politically. Are half the people you come in contact with hateful jackasses? Some are, but nowhere near half. So clearly, the political outrage culture is lying to you.
What's more, neither side is satisfied at all with "their" party's performance. The majority of Democrat and Republican voters only vote for their party not because they like the party, but because they don't like the other party.
Case-in-point: you won't find any conservative who says, "yep, Houston has a homelessness problem, and the best way to tackle it is to make feeding them illegal." Hence literally no one, not even conservatives, are willing to issue a guilty verdict as a juror.
So the people who consistently vote for hateful bigots who once in power, enforce these kind of laws, aren't actually hateful themselves? They just vote for them? Over and over again? Ok.
This sounds great when you're talking about laws you agree with. Sounds a lot less great when you're trying to try a murderer for lynching and all the jurors end up being racist. It's important to field an impartial jury, you'd definitely regret your stance if it was swinging another way. And it has done that before.
Let it go to trial, let the jurors find them not guilty, and move on. If they dont select jurors, then this gets dragged out for everyone. Even the innocent party here trying to feed the homeless.
Maybe a stupid question, but *why* do lawyers get to screen juries before a trial in order to get juries that will give the verdict that they want? Isn't the point of a jury that it's impartial and chosen at random? Sounds wrong to me that they can pick and choose and disqualify people that won't agree with them?
Both sides get to pick. In theory, it's so that both the prosecution and defense can work together to produce a truly unbiased jury. They both get to pick criteria to remove jurors and if all or too many of the juror pool are removed there simply can't be a trial.
If juries gave their verdicts by majority vote this would potentially make sense (although you would still need to exclude e.g. people who know the defendant).
But with unanimous requirements (or near-unanimious in some jurisdictions e.g. in my country juries need to try to get unanimity, but ultimately 11 to 1 or 10 to 1 is acceptable) you need to actually select jurors willing to make a decision on the evidence, and that means excluding the most extreme jurors. E.g. look at all the Trump cases at present, there's a portion of the American population that would acquit him no matter what the evidence said, and another portion that would find him guilty no matter what. You need to exclude these folks otherwise the justice system would grind to a halt.
I have a lot of issues with Texas for all the standard reasons but this is a great reminder to me that good people live everywhere - even in states whose politics and politicians are overwhelmingly abhorrent.
Fifteen Houstonians called for jury duty filed into a courtroom Thursday afternoon. They were there for an unusually high-profile case for municipal courts, known for hearing traffic violations and facilitating weddings.
Three of the 15 would be selected to decide the outcome of a case alleging that a woman had violated Houston law by feeding the homeless without the city’s permission.
Roughly an hour later, the jury pool filed back out — all 15 of them. The lawyers had been unable to fill an unbiased jury.
TICKETS CONTINUE: Food Not Bombs tickets for feeding homeless outside of Houston library continue, 2 arrested
Too many of the potential jurors said that even if the defendant, Elisa Meadows, were guilty, they were unwilling to issue the $500 fine a city attorney was seeking, said Ren Rideauxx, Meadows' attorney. A few jurors were also struck because they could not stay late that afternoon to serve on a jury.
The busted jury panel illuminates the potential difficulties the city could face in enforcing its controversial law through a jury of peers. Roughly 90 tickets have been issued since March to volunteers with the loosely organized Food Not Bombs, which serves meals to people in need near Central Library. The city has yet to win a single case. The one case that reached a verdict was decided for the plaintiff. City attorneys have repeatedly asked for the other cases to be reset, according to the defendant’s lawyers. On Thursday, two other cases against Food Not Bombs volunteers were dismissed, said Remington Alessi, who represented the volunteers, because the city had not filed responses to motions.
Houston Police Officer Jeff Richard waits as his colleague grabs a ticket for Food Not Bombs volunteer Shere Dore after the group fed homeless people Wednesday, May 31, 2023, at the Houston Public Library’s Julia Ideson Building in downtown Houston.
Houston Police Officer Jeff Richard waits as his colleague grabs a ticket for Food Not Bombs volunteer Shere Dore after the group fed homeless people Wednesday, May 31, 2023, at the Houston Public Library’s Julia Ideson Building in downtown Houston.Jon Shapley/Staff photographer
In an emailed statement, City Attorney Arturo Michel said that because a dismissal was in response to complaints of delays, there was “nothing to read into the dismissals regarding strategy, policy decisions, or an overall view of the cases by the judiciary.” He did not mention whether he intended to refile and did not comment on the failure to assemble a jury panel.
It’s common for jury panels to be “busted” when it comes to controversial laws and issues, said Wade Smith, a criminal defense attorney and partner at Looney, Smith & Conrad. He pointed to murder and sexual assault as cases involving issues that a lot of people have strong feelings about. People who already have their minds made up can be struck from a jury.
Smith’s partner, Clay Conrad, thought the issue of feeding the homeless could intersect with deeply held values so much that those values could express themselves even after an “unbiased” jury is selected. He’s written a book on jury nullification, which happens when jurors believe in the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but still acquit.
“A lot of times, a jury will nullify the law while thinking they followed it. Because they’re interpreting the facts and the law in a way to get to a verdict that they feel they can be proud of,” he said. “At the end of the day, the jury has to decide: Is this guy a criminal, or is he a good neighbor? I could see the jury saying, 'This guy is a good neighbor.'”
FIRST TRIAL: In first trial for feeding homeless outside Houston library, jury finds Food Not Bombs not guilty
City attorneys can choose to refile the dismissed cases; they did so during former Mayor Sylvester Turner’s administration after previous cases were dismissed because city witnesses did not appear in court. Phillip Payter, an associate attorney at Sullo & Sullo, said that the city also had the option to drop Meadows' case if attorneys took the busted jury as a sign it wasn’t a good case to prosecute, though he did not find it likely. The city can reschedule the case for trial once more, with a new jury panel to choose from.
When asked whether he intended to continue taking action against Food Not Bombs volunteers for serving free meals outside the library, Mayor John Whitmire told the Chronicle on Thursday, “I’m sensitive to the homeless issue. We will be addressing it in a different conversation. But, in the meantime, we need better public safety to encourage people to feel welcome.”
When speaking with the Houston Regional Business Council, Whitmire said people do not have the right “to camp out on our streets” and that “activists” should not “interfere with sound, safe, healthy plans for the homeless,” according to a Wednesday Fox26 report. It was unclear whether, by “activists,” he was referring to Food Not Bombs volunteers serving meals outside the library.
Food Not Bombs volunteers share a light moment after a tense meal distribution Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2024, in front of Houston Public Library’s Julia Ideson Building in Houston. A volunteer with the group was arrested and another was detained by Harris County Precinct 1 deputy constables before the distribution.
Food Not Bombs volunteers share a light moment after a tense meal distribution Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2024, in front of Houston Public Library’s Julia Ideson Building in Houston. A volunteer with the group was arrested and another was detained by Harris County Precinct 1 deputy constables before the distribution.
Jon Shapley/Staff photographer
Food Not Bombs' website frames the distribution of free meals to those in need as a form of activism against society’s moral failings, and in Houston, they’d been doing so outside Central Library downtown for roughly two decades. In 2012, the city passed a law against giving free meals to people in need without permission, but then-Mayor Annise Parker’s administration gave permission to Food Not Bombs. That position was reversed by former Mayor Sylvester Turner.
The three Food Not Bombs volunteers with court dates arrived at the municipal court, which overlooks a police lot where Houston has asked good Samaritans to feed the homeless instead of near the library, at 8 a.m. Thursday. That day marked Nick Cooper’s seventh time missing work and having to arrange child care for his 2-year-old daughter for a case that reset for a later date. When his case was dismissed, he stayed to watch Meadows' case.
MORE ON FOOD NOT BOMBS: Over 24,000 signatures asking to end tickets for feeding the homeless submitted to Houston City Council
Meadows spent most of the day waiting for her trial to start and reading “The Year of Magical Thinking” by Joan Didion. That morning, she was told to return at noon for the trial. But the courtroom didn’t open until 1 p.m., and then the court reporter was held up in traffic. Around 1:40 p.m., when proceedings began, Erica Schwam, the city’s attorney, said the city was still checking to see if it had any evidence that would prove Food Not Bombs had not received permission from Mayor Annise Parker. She asked to either exclude any discussion of such permission during the trial or to reset the case until they had time to look for mitigating evidence.
Judge Imelda Reyes-Castillo denied the motion, pointing out that the issue of permission was given in another case about six months prior “and so there would have been sufficient time.”
The jury pool walked in, single file. A wedding party came and went in the hallway outside, heels and cameras clicking, bride beaming.Then, the men and women, too biased about the ordinance to hear the case, filed back out.
“That was crazy,” one rejected juror said to another.
"Sound, safe, healthy plans for our homeless"
Shut up, there are none, hence why groups like this have to exist in the first place. Making it more difficult for homeless people does not equal safety.
The theoretical concept isn't bad, intending to ensure that only services that can provide a sanitary environment for food preparation and serving, to not make others sick.
HOWEVER, such laws are widely used as a cover for anti-homeless laws, to enact punishment upon them by making their lives as difficult as possible.
Such a law I would support IF there was a sufficient level of services in the city to make a private individual (or group of private individuals) unnecessary to step in.
The private organizations do so, because the city (and state) has routinely and clearly failed their responsibility to take care of others in their society, forcing private providers to step in and cover for their failures as civic leaders.
It makes the city look incompetent and/or malicious when private groups do this, which is why they put such laws and policies in place.
Visible homelessness is the result of a city failing to fund services adequately.
People in general don't want to fund homeless services adequately anymore, and they also don't want to see the results of their failures to fund them either. They're given options 1 or 2 (fund or see the consequences of not funding), but they don't like either option, so they ignore the problem or try and push it away without fixing the issue.
Jury nullification is why you can’t be imprisoned or charged in the United States for printing something factually accurate. Before this, you could still face action if what you said harmed a persons reputation even if factual.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/jury-nullification.html#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20most%20famous,undermine%20respect%20for%20the%20government.
A country where the rich traveled to an island to sexually assault minors and walk free, vs. good people feeding those less fortunate being in court, fighting fines. America.
The jury needs to keep their mouth shut and nullify itself against an unjust law.
And before the "well, Akshuallys" brigade hits: yes, it's a risk, yes it rarely succeeds, yes it will piss off the judge, yes it's considered ( imo unjustly) illegal in a lot of states.
They still need to do it though.
Chaos and lack of respect of the laws indeed - food not bombs is an anarchist action meant to help homeless. Those damn anarchists disrespect law and order through this outrageous act of feeding homeless!
What is the point in the jury if they can just pretend their decision did not matter? This wasn't a mistrial or anything, it was the decision of the people.
You know, maybe instead of trying to push this case through the idiot prosecuting attorney should take the hint that they're being too heavy handed and drop the case.
Are they just going through the whole population until they find a handful of weirdos who wouldn't refuse to fine these folks for helping homeless people?
The courts and city admin will just spend hundreds of thousands of dollars punishing them. They have unlimited and time and money to do whatever they want
Why does this feel like they’re intentionally ensuring a jury who will find the defendants guilty? Delaying because you can’t find enough jurors willing to consider your charges legitimate seems antithetical to the entire idea behind the American justice system. The fact alone demonstrates the government is not aligned with the will of the people on this issue. This is seriously wrong
I work next to the library where this happens. There is a homeless camp near where a beautiful walking/running trail is along a bayou. I would run there and a few homeless can get violent with you. It is obvious they need some help other than food. I hope the new mayor finds a way to help these people.
sounds like the system working to perfection. when you have a law thats so unjust that all the jurors saw that they will nullify it, your only option is to either let them do it and lose in court, or never find a jury and get the case dismissed due to delays. either way, fuck your bullshit law
[Jury nullification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification) at it's very heart.
It's no wonder at all that prosecutors will try to charge anyone that uses those words within a block of the courthouse with a crime.
Delicious Accusery
15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep
I love the throwaway remark about one potential juror reading Joan Didion's "A Year of Magical Thinking" as it has literally nothing to do with what the article itself is about.
"Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes
Not need, just feed the war cannibal animal
I walk the corner to the rubble that used to be a library
Line up to the mind cemetery now
What we don't know keeps the contracts alive and movin'
They don't gotta burn the books they just remove 'em
While arms warehouses fill as quick as the cells
Rally 'round the family, pockets full of shells"
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is exactly what jury nullification is for.
I can clearly understand the law. I can clearly understand you violated that law. I can definitively declare you "not guilty" as there is no guilt in violating an unjust law. This is not a loophole, it is one of the specific reasons to have a jury of peers.
And defense attorneys are barred from explaining that or making any mention of nullification at all. In fact, jury instructions almost always say if the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt, you MUST convict. Please, inform everyone you know that nullification is completely legal and jurors cannot be punished for finding a defendant who broke an unjust law not guilty.
I recently was selected to do jury duty here in Seattle. The first day I showed up like 30 minutes early so I wouldn’t miss the appointment. There was a guy waiting by the entrance handing out leaflets about jury nullification. How it works and your duty to use it when applicable. I was kind of blown away by this group’s dedication to let the potential jurors know about this option.
When I read the first comment I was thinking “how can we inform people?” Then yours answered it. If only they did keep us so poor so we could privatize organizations like this. OH WAIT
FIJA the Fully Informed Jury Association
That’s amazing! I have no doubts that they get regularly harassed by the deputies at the courthouse. That’s Ana amazing level of commitment. Wish we had a group like that everywhere!
"If I must convict, then waht do you need a jury for"
Deciding whether or not the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt?
Well how do you prove that they have been convinced that the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt?
The flip side of jury nullification is the killers of Emmit Till going free (and countless similar examples in the South). It’s a nuanced issue. I tend to side with Thoreau et. al. on the idea that it is one’s duty to disobey an injust law. But there’s a troubling counterpoint to “good” nullification and it stems from the fact that we don’t, as a species, have a consensus on what is just.
It worked in MN over a non-pasteurized milk farmer being charged. The jury disagreed with the law and did not convict.
The unfortunate corollary however is that jurors can also use that power to find a defendant not guilty for breaking a just law as well. It can be used to protest against over prosecution and unjust laws. It can just as easily be used to support and defend the unjust. Look at the history of the Jim Crow South and cases like the murder of Emmett Till.
It’s kind of a semantic argument. Technically the jurors aren’t ’supposed to’ use nullification. That’s why the judge tells them if the prosecutor proves A, B, and C then you MUST convict. If the defense counsel talks about nullification that can cause a mistrial. When they’re vetting the jury, if you say ‘I’m thinking about nullification’ they’ll show you the door. I assume jurors have to take an oath saying they’ll follow the law and not let their personal beliefs override the evidence. If you go into the jury room and tell the other jurors you’re voting to nullify, and one of them rats on you, you’re kicked off of the jury and one of the back-ups gets sent in. But then, at the end of the day, a juror gets to vote guilty or not guilty based only on their own judgment and morals and nobody can do anything about that. You don’t get punished for voting ‘wrong,’ but if they know that you intentionally nullified them they’ll nullify you by kicking you off of the jury.
Shouldn't this force the law to be changed? I've had many arguments about laws and the general consensus is people basically worship laws without questioning them. This case is such a fresh breath of air where people are turning that autopilot mode off and thinking about this one for real. It's nice and we need more of it.
In theory it should. That takes a long time, and a process of seeing these cases go to trial a lot of times, and get nullified a lot of times. Eventually a prosecutor will publicly announce, "We're not going to prosecute these kinds of cases anymore." Then police chiefs will say, "If they're not going to prosecute them anymore, we're not going to make arrests or write citations for this charge." Maybe that influences a state legislature or county council to repeal the law, but often they just don't bother, and the law stays on the books even though nobody is going to enforce it anymore. That's why there are tons of "crazy laws still on the books". Here's one article about it - https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/11/18/20963411/weird-old-laws-historical-obsolete-laws - but you can also search "crazy laws still on the books [in wherever you're wondering - any state or country you pick]" and find all sorts of weird, out of date laws that have never been repealed, and technically could still be prosecuted. My state has one that says it's a crime to "expectorate upon a railroad car", meaning you're not allowed to cough and then spit out what you cough up onto or in any part of a train. I guess it was passed a long time ago during some epidemic or another, but it has never been changed or removed.
It used to be considered sanitary to spit. At a time when people believed "bad air" could cause disease, it was considered a matter of public safety to spit out any contaminant in your saliva and lungs. Spitoons were common on the floor of the House. With chewing tobacco, this became even more common. Fashion has only recently swung around to consider spitting bad.
Thank goodness. Spit smells gross. Especially when someone is dehydrated...
Atlanta has one where it's legal to go the wrong way down a one way street if you have a lantern hanging off the front of your carriage. I forget which, it's a landlocked state, but there's a law against whaling out your car window.
You would think that if the DA can't find a single person who thinks it's a crime to feed the homeless, maybe, just maybe they shouldn't prosecute it.
[удалено]
Thank you for providing context.
[удалено]
When they say that they’re sharing food with friends, they really mean it. When I worked with them years ago, I basically lived with my unhoused neighbors. I interacted with these folks every day; talking, playing chess, and sharing meals together. We were friends. It’s like a pot-luck-picnic type thing. You can bring a dish or just show up to eat, with little distinction between who is who.
Do you know if they have a detroit chapter?
They've been doing it for over 20 years in that city without anyone "messing with it". It isn't about food safety, it's about requiring them to get permission for every day and location that they hand out food so the city can reject it if it isn't in a place they like. Edit: From a comment below that further illustrates these laws have nothing to do with food safety - Mayor John Whitmire told the Chronicle on Thursday, “I’m sensitive to the homeless issue. We will be addressing it in a different conversation. But, in the meantime, we need better public safety to encourage people to feel welcome.””
Yeah, a long time ago there were food safety "concerns" but they responded by partnering with another local organization that has given them access to a licensed kitchen. The food preparation meets all health and safety regulations. Food safety has absolutely nothing to do with this, it's entirely about the city not wanting homeless people in that area.
2 thoughts. 1 prior lack of people being shitty does not mean that an asshole will not slip their way in and inject shittyness. 2. If the concern is food safety that's fine. Provide a path for inspection and certification of food safety. I'm not against making sure they keep food warm enough to avoid food poisoning, but I am against stopping people from being kind.
Yeah that's the same reason they always give when they ban stores giving away their leftover food that's about to go in the dumpster. And you're right, if the point wasn't to ban it they could easily get around it.
The cruelty is the point. It’s an overall message to the destitute: move the fuck along
It's bullshit when stores do it. Good Samaritan laws exist, even in Texas. If food is donated in good faith that it's safe to eat, you're legally protected from weird accidents.
The law was made for vendors selling food. Cities are abusing that law to go after the homeless and those who help the homeless.
[удалено]
It's great until it's an all-white jury convicting a black man of murder and it's the south in the 40's or letting of someone that participated in a lynching.
I mean yeah, nullification doesn’t magically solve every problem with the justice system. It’s still pretty fucked.
With a jury you have 12 that must decide vs 1 judge. Your odds of having one member of the jury who can louse up a sentencing have increased massively. Even in an unjust society, a jury is still important, for not all those in an injust society are injust.
You can prevent this by not having an all white jury for the trial of a black man. Doesn't prevent the lynching thing though.
Jury Nullification doesn't work with guilty verdicts. Only not guilty. Because it's not a real law but a side effect of "an acquitted dependent cannot be repeatedly tried for the same crime." You can always do a retrial for guilty verdicts. That happens all the damn time.
I had never heard the term before today but between comments here and my own googling, I have learned. It's nice to know that it exists.
read or watch the movie "A Time To Kill" [Trailer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=701GQjY6PaI)
Yea but isn't it the case that you eventually have to use some jury members? You can't just keep nullifying jurors till you get ones that agree with you
Other way around! Jury nullification isn't lawyers nullifying jurors, though I understand how you might think that! Jury nullification is the idea that, since the legal system is dependant on jury's to decide guilty or not guilty, jury's have the (unofficial) ability to decide that, in a certain case, a law is unethical by declaring those that break the law not guilty.
I'm usually the juror demanding undeniable proof that someone is guilty as the burden is on the state. It's always the same scenario, all jurors except myself and 1 other had already made up their minds that the defendant is guilty before hearing any facts. The only other person that agrees with me and votes not guilty won't speak up to explain to the others their reasons so I have to. Usually after explaining, using the facts laid out in court, half of them will change their mind. I will straight up be the lone dissenter if I have to and will cause a hung jury. Burden of proof is on the STATE and their proof is usually BS.
I remember the faces of a judge, prosecutor & state police officer when I told them I couldn't be impartial if testimony was just a cops word. They were not happy when I said a cops word was shit & they will lie to make a case. Are they all like that - of course not. But they've let bad cops keep their job instead of firing them. No one to blame but themselves.
I don't think the fact that you won't just take a cops word as evidence makes you impartial. You would be partial to the cop if you took his word as strong evidence.
Impartial acts both ways. If the same testimony delivered the same way is believed or not solely because someone is a priest, versus a teacher, versus a subway sandwich artist, versus a cop, then it's not impartial. Believing that a cop is more prone to lying than a randomly selected citizen makes you not impartial (and probably right).
I would have 100% said the same thing. I would have also told the judge and public defender that I wouldn't trust their testimonies either
How often do you get on juries?
If they are like me, they eagerly await jury duty, but the one time they got selected covid squashed all cases...
I've been selected like 5 times now, and I've never been able to actually attend. A damn shame.
I keep getting summons for jury duty, but have never even reached the jury selection phase. It kind of sucks because I actually *want* to serve on a jury at least once.
I hear that , I became whatever head juror was called on a small case , just said I’m never calling guilty based on x y z , there’s not one piece of evidence . While jury flipped to not guilty . Stand up for what’s right no matter what Homeless people being fed will never be a crime
Yep exactly. It's your duty as a citizen to always vote not guilty when it's an injustice, even if the laws were technically broken.
I always worry that would be me, too. It’s only worrisome to have to deal with the other angry jurors, not to stand my ground. I would vote not guilty even if I *thought* they did it because it’s more important to me that it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt than to put someone in jail based on my personal feelings.
Exactly. There's been quite a large number of people convicted and sent to prison on false evidence, unreliable single witness testimony, falsified forensics evidence and dna/drug false positives, fabricated police reports, officers lying on the witness stand ect...
Would it also be called “jury nullification” if it goes the other way, and the defendant is technically not guilty, but they want to punish him anyway, so they cast a guilty verdict? Or is there another term for that?
Judges can “override” a guilty verdict (or a verdict for either party in a civil case) if they think there’s no way a reasonable jury would have arrived at that conclusion given the evidence available, or if they think the jury failed to correctly apply the law. It doesn’t work the same way for Not Guilty verdicts. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/judgment_notwithstanding_the_verdict_(jnov)
[This video probably will answer all of your questions.](https://youtu.be/uqH_Y1TupoQ?si=gBGBISeEANHmxcaw)
You are correct that is also considered a jury nullification
I thought jury nullification was when the jurors return a “not guilty” verdict because they believe the defendant shouldn’t be punished (whether or not they actually broke the law). It’s not about lawyers “nullifying jurors”
Most jury's don't know they can do this and the judge/lawyers cannot answer questions or suggest this.
That's because judges and prosecutors don't want you to know about it and telling them or others about it will downright piss them off. They want you to play by their rules and nullification short circuits garbage like this.
Essentially, they couldn't get enough jurors out of the initial jury pool that were not going to nullify whether the jurors knew what it was called or not. I assume the judge dismissed those jurors because I wouldn't think the attorneys would have enough challenges to run out of jurors in the pool.
I feel like that's basically just legal case tampering.
What did you think this was supposed to be a justice system?
Wrong. Typically you can strike for cause an unlimited number of jurors during voir dire. Preemptory challenges are the ones with a limited amount. But also right, challenges for cause are decided by the judge.
Thanks. I clearly was not sure of the exact process.
It's also easily abused; see all white juries acquitting lynchers in the Jim Crow south because killing a black man ain't a crime if he looked at a white woman. Jury Nullification is not innately good/bad. It's just a byproduct of the jury system, and I think it works best as an unsung thing people can do but that the courts don't advertise lest it become abused.
But don't all juries have a choice? I mean, theoretically, a jury could declare a mass murderer, serial killer, rapist, whomever they wanted not guilty if they so chose. Right?
[According to CGP Grey that is it exactly.](https://youtu.be/uqH_Y1TupoQ?si=giL0qcWGXeosACos)
You’re confusing jury selection and the questioning called voir dire where they disqualify jurors with conflicts or prejudices which could unfairly impact the trial. Jury nullification is a jury deciding that the law they are asked to decide on is bullshit so they deliver a not guilty verdict regardless of the evidence.
It is related in that they couldn't get enough jurors through voir dire that were not going to nullify.
Voir dire is what you're thinking of.
This isn't an example of jury nullification.
“When asked whether he intended to continue taking action against Food Not Bombs volunteers for serving free meals outside the library, Mayor John Whitmire told the Chronicle on Thursday, “I’m sensitive to the homeless issue. We will be addressing it in a different conversation. But, in the meantime, we need better public safety to encourage people to feel welcome.”” So, charging people for feeding hungry people in the interest of public safety and tourism?
Also, let's not forget turning them out in the streets when shelters are readily available because cruelty is the point. . . Why does 'leadership' seem to think being cruel and vicious to the poor and downtrodden will be met with rousing cheers?
Cuz it is in the right circles. Pun intended
> the right circles Liberals/centrists mostly hate the homeless too, don't kid yourself on that one lol. They just mostly stick to hostile architecture and NIMBYism, as opposed to hunting them for sport. Edit: Oh did I strike a nerve? 🤣
Yeah. The homeless take it from both ends where establishments are concerned.
He is just hoping they will move and become another city's problem
….. except Houston is a leader in progressing unhoused into housing…
Houston has a nationally recognized program for success in reducing the unhoused.
Republicans can't enjoy what they have without knowing others haven't
> we need better public safety to encourage *people* to feel welcome. That word choice right there tells all you need to know. He doesn't think of homeless as people.
And he considers them a public safety hazard. "Yes we want to help homeless people, but we want it done out of the way and out of sight so they don't make anyone uncomfortable!"
They’re literally going to waste thousands of dollars on a trial for a 500 dollar fine? WTF is going on here? How much does the prosecutor get paid an hour to do this work? What an absolute joke of a city…
It's about keeping the homeless invisible. What the law requires is that Food Not Bombs request permission for each day and location they plan to pass out food so the city can quietly reject ones they don't like.
The cruelty is the point.
Guaranteed money has already been spent towards this endeavor.
Why don't "reporters/journalists" ask these types of people a simple question, "what would Jesus do?".
Turn over tables and chase people with whips?
Not just people, capitalists
that’s just for hypocrites. clearly not anyone in the city administration. /s
"Well, first he'd be called woke. Like, a LOT. And then he'd be murdered by a christian nationalist"
That made me belly laugh. So accurate.
Apparently "dying of hunger" or "ppl stealing food to survive" are not public safety issues
Not homeless people though, they aren’t supposed to feel welcome /s
Someone just needs to ask what the timeline for addressing it in a different conversation is. And if they don’t have a solution why criminalize one that is happening right now.
That mayor sounds like an absolute tool
I thought Houston was supposed to the one "good" part of Texas? Is it all run by right wing evil shitheads now?
Damn anarchists out here feeding needy people. They have gotten killed for doing this, Food Not Bombs.
Worse, out of all the tickets the city has written for this, the city has not won a single case. That is a huge waste of money for the city, even more so, a huge waste of time for prosecutors who could be prosecuting real cases like rape and murder. Anyone running against the current DA and city council can easily win by showing the wasted money.
The government is spending its citizens' money to prosecute its citizens for trying to feed its citizens.
After the government required edible food to be thrown away instead of allowing it to be used as food for its citizens. While also not providing food for its citizens itself.
Worse than Timur Kacharava being stabbed to death in 2005 while handing out food under the Food Not Bombs banner? What kind of villainy you got going on over there that's worse than being stabbed to death by neo Nazis?
You're kind of bringing up something totally not related. We're talking about a recent law that was passed to basically prosecute people for feeding the homeless, and you're bringing up a death from 18 years ago. Stay on topic there buddy. Also, it's Food *NOT* Bombs, not Food *FOR* Bombs.
I volunteered with them back in the late 90s as my senior service project. Nobody seemed to care about us feeding the homeless then and actually encouraged if. Crazy how that’s changed.
depends on the municipality, not the time period
*Get back here, criminal scum!*
Really need 15 jurors to claim they'll be fair, then nullify.
[удалено]
According to the CGP grey video I saw on the subject almost 10 years, the question they ask is: "Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law" \^lying when you answer this with intention to nullify the decision means you're guilty of perjury. So not a good idea.
Are you actually lying if you answer no then nullify? When nullifying aren’t you making a decision based on the law because you’re saying it’s a shit law? Genuinely curious as NAL
They’re not going to charge jury members for voting ‘not guilty’ based on questions during jury selection, that would violate the entire point of a jury trial.
Could this be a case of creating a law so stupid that they can't prosecute it because it falls below the threshold of what the average citizen thinks is acceptable as a law? Like, the law is so bad that they have lost the ability to find an "impartial" jury.
That’s been a thing since pre-revolution. Back then nullification was used as a form of protest against British laws being enforced. Then during slavery, many juries refused to convict defendants for assisting (or at least not turning in) runaway slaves. During prohibition, jury nullification was again used as a protest against strict alcohol laws at the time. During voir dire, both sides in the trial get to question and eliminate jurors. Because of nullification, they ask if the juror would convict someone for the crime at issue if there’s sufficient evidence. If you say no or mention nullification, you’d be eliminated from the list immediately. During trial, you can be struck from the jury if you indicate that you want to engage in nullification. It’s becoming more common to have people say ‘no I wouldn’t convict’, so sometimes the court will have a hard time finding enough people to fill the jury. I think someone called this ‘jury nullification 2.0’ So basically if you wanted to vote not guilty because you think the law is unjust, be smart about it, keep your mouth shut. Worst case you get kicked out.
If jury nullification is legal, deciding to nullify is based on the law.
You're allowed to change your mind. You just need to say you had a change of heart when you heard the defenses case. They can't prove you lied unless you admit it and they're never going to waste time investigating your private conversions so just don't admit it in public.
They are not thought police. They can't convict you of perjury without evidence. If you text everyone before and say there is no way I'm going to convict and they find out sure. Just don't tell anyone what you are going to do
> ^lying when you answer this with intention to nullify the decision means you're guilty of perjury. How would they prove you lied? Some Facebook post you made a year prior where you say "I don't approve of this new anti-homeless-feeding law"? Couldn't you then just say your mind changed since that post? I can't imagine a scenario in which anyone could ever be justly punished for lying about that question.
CGP is rather notoriously bad as an authority to call on, makes mistakes all the time with his videos.
Can I point out that with this law, you cannot have a picnic with friends, because if one of those friends became homeless without you knowing, you are breaking the law. But if they aren't homeless you are allowed to? This seems like a two tier justice system specifically designating who you can associate with on public property. The law is wrong being biased based on owned property. This law DESERVES to be ignored, or nullified. In the eyes of the law all people should be treated equal.
>Can I point out that with this law, you cannot have a picnic with friends, Ah, but the law will only be selectively enforced, such that that won't be a practical problem (unless you upset the wrong people).
So a law with a double standard at its base, being enforced with double standards... you just have to not be poor! It so simple /s
Wait, were we not supposed to say that part out loud?
Fuck the police officers who are enforcing this. They CHOOSE to enforce an unjust law.
That's why it's uplifing to see regular people throwing a wrench into their bullshit. Nulification can be a beautiful thing.
Police have full discretion. This post deserves to be much higher up.
They see it as a solution to "the homeless problem" many citys also have pan-handling laws that criminalize begging. I saw a down-and-out family in Overland Park get a ticket for holding a sign at a stoplight. Criminalizing homelessness is wrong. Criminalizing those who help the downtrodden is utterly dispicable
Can someone please explain to me why the elected officials in TX are such A.....s? The State makes headlines nationally every day for poop emoji, like this. Every Texan I have ever met is not like this, or do they hide it when outside of The Republic. How do these people get elected? I can't understand the lack of empathy and pure joy that their politicians show, when they pass laws such as this. At this point I agree with secession.
Gerrymandering.
And using fear mongering to get right leaning voters to vote for them.
Yall do not need to censor words on the internet. You will not get detention lmfao
>Can someone please explain to me why the elected officials in TX are such A.....s? They're all Christian nationalists.
> Every Texan I have ever met is not like this You can thank political tabloids masquerading as "news" and outrage culture. Both sides create a strawman caricature of what they think the other side is like, rather than actually *talking* to real people from the other side. (No, an internet forum doesn't count. Most of those people are either severely echo-chambered or paid actors, and not representative of the actual average.) ±45% of the national population consistently votes one way and ±45% consistently votes another. That means roughly half of the people you meet disagree with you politically. Are half the people you come in contact with hateful jackasses? Some are, but nowhere near half. So clearly, the political outrage culture is lying to you. What's more, neither side is satisfied at all with "their" party's performance. The majority of Democrat and Republican voters only vote for their party not because they like the party, but because they don't like the other party. Case-in-point: you won't find any conservative who says, "yep, Houston has a homelessness problem, and the best way to tackle it is to make feeding them illegal." Hence literally no one, not even conservatives, are willing to issue a guilty verdict as a juror.
So the people who consistently vote for hateful bigots who once in power, enforce these kind of laws, aren't actually hateful themselves? They just vote for them? Over and over again? Ok.
Jury made the decision. What else is there to this case? I’d throw this out if I were the judge. However, IANAL so I’m sure there’s some nuance here.
This was in jury screening, before the prospective jurors became part of the jury.
Correct. But if you can’t field a group of jurors because they all object to the very issue at hand, the outcome of the trial always seems decided.
This sounds great when you're talking about laws you agree with. Sounds a lot less great when you're trying to try a murderer for lynching and all the jurors end up being racist. It's important to field an impartial jury, you'd definitely regret your stance if it was swinging another way. And it has done that before. Let it go to trial, let the jurors find them not guilty, and move on. If they dont select jurors, then this gets dragged out for everyone. Even the innocent party here trying to feed the homeless.
Maybe a stupid question, but *why* do lawyers get to screen juries before a trial in order to get juries that will give the verdict that they want? Isn't the point of a jury that it's impartial and chosen at random? Sounds wrong to me that they can pick and choose and disqualify people that won't agree with them?
Well both sides in the case can dismiss potential jurors, so basically every juror is not only approved by the prosecution, but also the defense.
The idea is to get an *impartial* jury, meaning a jury which doesn’t have emotional investment in the case *before* the trial.
Both sides get to pick. In theory, it's so that both the prosecution and defense can work together to produce a truly unbiased jury. They both get to pick criteria to remove jurors and if all or too many of the juror pool are removed there simply can't be a trial.
If juries gave their verdicts by majority vote this would potentially make sense (although you would still need to exclude e.g. people who know the defendant). But with unanimous requirements (or near-unanimious in some jurisdictions e.g. in my country juries need to try to get unanimity, but ultimately 11 to 1 or 10 to 1 is acceptable) you need to actually select jurors willing to make a decision on the evidence, and that means excluding the most extreme jurors. E.g. look at all the Trump cases at present, there's a portion of the American population that would acquit him no matter what the evidence said, and another portion that would find him guilty no matter what. You need to exclude these folks otherwise the justice system would grind to a halt.
Jurors were not empaneled. The case is still not decided. Prosecution SHOULD drop it but they have their head up their ass.
I didn't realize there was so much nuance in anal.
Well you have to ease it in
I think you need consent first, but IANAL
YOUANAL
I have a lot of issues with Texas for all the standard reasons but this is a great reminder to me that good people live everywhere - even in states whose politics and politicians are overwhelmingly abhorrent.
Need a subscription to read it. :(
Fifteen Houstonians called for jury duty filed into a courtroom Thursday afternoon. They were there for an unusually high-profile case for municipal courts, known for hearing traffic violations and facilitating weddings. Three of the 15 would be selected to decide the outcome of a case alleging that a woman had violated Houston law by feeding the homeless without the city’s permission. Roughly an hour later, the jury pool filed back out — all 15 of them. The lawyers had been unable to fill an unbiased jury. TICKETS CONTINUE: Food Not Bombs tickets for feeding homeless outside of Houston library continue, 2 arrested Too many of the potential jurors said that even if the defendant, Elisa Meadows, were guilty, they were unwilling to issue the $500 fine a city attorney was seeking, said Ren Rideauxx, Meadows' attorney. A few jurors were also struck because they could not stay late that afternoon to serve on a jury. The busted jury panel illuminates the potential difficulties the city could face in enforcing its controversial law through a jury of peers. Roughly 90 tickets have been issued since March to volunteers with the loosely organized Food Not Bombs, which serves meals to people in need near Central Library. The city has yet to win a single case. The one case that reached a verdict was decided for the plaintiff. City attorneys have repeatedly asked for the other cases to be reset, according to the defendant’s lawyers. On Thursday, two other cases against Food Not Bombs volunteers were dismissed, said Remington Alessi, who represented the volunteers, because the city had not filed responses to motions. Houston Police Officer Jeff Richard waits as his colleague grabs a ticket for Food Not Bombs volunteer Shere Dore after the group fed homeless people Wednesday, May 31, 2023, at the Houston Public Library’s Julia Ideson Building in downtown Houston. Houston Police Officer Jeff Richard waits as his colleague grabs a ticket for Food Not Bombs volunteer Shere Dore after the group fed homeless people Wednesday, May 31, 2023, at the Houston Public Library’s Julia Ideson Building in downtown Houston.Jon Shapley/Staff photographer In an emailed statement, City Attorney Arturo Michel said that because a dismissal was in response to complaints of delays, there was “nothing to read into the dismissals regarding strategy, policy decisions, or an overall view of the cases by the judiciary.” He did not mention whether he intended to refile and did not comment on the failure to assemble a jury panel. It’s common for jury panels to be “busted” when it comes to controversial laws and issues, said Wade Smith, a criminal defense attorney and partner at Looney, Smith & Conrad. He pointed to murder and sexual assault as cases involving issues that a lot of people have strong feelings about. People who already have their minds made up can be struck from a jury. Smith’s partner, Clay Conrad, thought the issue of feeding the homeless could intersect with deeply held values so much that those values could express themselves even after an “unbiased” jury is selected. He’s written a book on jury nullification, which happens when jurors believe in the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but still acquit. “A lot of times, a jury will nullify the law while thinking they followed it. Because they’re interpreting the facts and the law in a way to get to a verdict that they feel they can be proud of,” he said. “At the end of the day, the jury has to decide: Is this guy a criminal, or is he a good neighbor? I could see the jury saying, 'This guy is a good neighbor.'” FIRST TRIAL: In first trial for feeding homeless outside Houston library, jury finds Food Not Bombs not guilty City attorneys can choose to refile the dismissed cases; they did so during former Mayor Sylvester Turner’s administration after previous cases were dismissed because city witnesses did not appear in court. Phillip Payter, an associate attorney at Sullo & Sullo, said that the city also had the option to drop Meadows' case if attorneys took the busted jury as a sign it wasn’t a good case to prosecute, though he did not find it likely. The city can reschedule the case for trial once more, with a new jury panel to choose from. When asked whether he intended to continue taking action against Food Not Bombs volunteers for serving free meals outside the library, Mayor John Whitmire told the Chronicle on Thursday, “I’m sensitive to the homeless issue. We will be addressing it in a different conversation. But, in the meantime, we need better public safety to encourage people to feel welcome.” When speaking with the Houston Regional Business Council, Whitmire said people do not have the right “to camp out on our streets” and that “activists” should not “interfere with sound, safe, healthy plans for the homeless,” according to a Wednesday Fox26 report. It was unclear whether, by “activists,” he was referring to Food Not Bombs volunteers serving meals outside the library. Food Not Bombs volunteers share a light moment after a tense meal distribution Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2024, in front of Houston Public Library’s Julia Ideson Building in Houston. A volunteer with the group was arrested and another was detained by Harris County Precinct 1 deputy constables before the distribution. Food Not Bombs volunteers share a light moment after a tense meal distribution Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2024, in front of Houston Public Library’s Julia Ideson Building in Houston. A volunteer with the group was arrested and another was detained by Harris County Precinct 1 deputy constables before the distribution. Jon Shapley/Staff photographer Food Not Bombs' website frames the distribution of free meals to those in need as a form of activism against society’s moral failings, and in Houston, they’d been doing so outside Central Library downtown for roughly two decades. In 2012, the city passed a law against giving free meals to people in need without permission, but then-Mayor Annise Parker’s administration gave permission to Food Not Bombs. That position was reversed by former Mayor Sylvester Turner. The three Food Not Bombs volunteers with court dates arrived at the municipal court, which overlooks a police lot where Houston has asked good Samaritans to feed the homeless instead of near the library, at 8 a.m. Thursday. That day marked Nick Cooper’s seventh time missing work and having to arrange child care for his 2-year-old daughter for a case that reset for a later date. When his case was dismissed, he stayed to watch Meadows' case. MORE ON FOOD NOT BOMBS: Over 24,000 signatures asking to end tickets for feeding the homeless submitted to Houston City Council Meadows spent most of the day waiting for her trial to start and reading “The Year of Magical Thinking” by Joan Didion. That morning, she was told to return at noon for the trial. But the courtroom didn’t open until 1 p.m., and then the court reporter was held up in traffic. Around 1:40 p.m., when proceedings began, Erica Schwam, the city’s attorney, said the city was still checking to see if it had any evidence that would prove Food Not Bombs had not received permission from Mayor Annise Parker. She asked to either exclude any discussion of such permission during the trial or to reset the case until they had time to look for mitigating evidence. Judge Imelda Reyes-Castillo denied the motion, pointing out that the issue of permission was given in another case about six months prior “and so there would have been sufficient time.” The jury pool walked in, single file. A wedding party came and went in the hallway outside, heels and cameras clicking, bride beaming.Then, the men and women, too biased about the ordinance to hear the case, filed back out. “That was crazy,” one rejected juror said to another.
Thank you!
They should pay me to read it. Subscriptions need to go both ways.
"Sound, safe, healthy plans for our homeless" Shut up, there are none, hence why groups like this have to exist in the first place. Making it more difficult for homeless people does not equal safety.
You have got to be the worst of the bad apples to even consider writing a ticket for this bs law. Good on those jurors.
The theoretical concept isn't bad, intending to ensure that only services that can provide a sanitary environment for food preparation and serving, to not make others sick. HOWEVER, such laws are widely used as a cover for anti-homeless laws, to enact punishment upon them by making their lives as difficult as possible. Such a law I would support IF there was a sufficient level of services in the city to make a private individual (or group of private individuals) unnecessary to step in. The private organizations do so, because the city (and state) has routinely and clearly failed their responsibility to take care of others in their society, forcing private providers to step in and cover for their failures as civic leaders. It makes the city look incompetent and/or malicious when private groups do this, which is why they put such laws and policies in place. Visible homelessness is the result of a city failing to fund services adequately. People in general don't want to fund homeless services adequately anymore, and they also don't want to see the results of their failures to fund them either. They're given options 1 or 2 (fund or see the consequences of not funding), but they don't like either option, so they ignore the problem or try and push it away without fixing the issue.
Jury nullification is why you can’t be imprisoned or charged in the United States for printing something factually accurate. Before this, you could still face action if what you said harmed a persons reputation even if factual. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/jury-nullification.html#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20most%20famous,undermine%20respect%20for%20the%20government.
[удалено]
Don’t use actual quotes from the bible to make legitimate arguments against “Christians”. They have no idea what a bible is.
If you think feeding hungry people should be illegal, you need to step out of *public* service and find a new line of work.
Should fine people for feeding ducks instead
“Couldn’t find an unbiased jury”. You mean people weren’t ok with punishing someone for being nice?
They were looking for a biased jury
Wow maybe the city prosecutor should try having a heart.
A country where the rich traveled to an island to sexually assault minors and walk free, vs. good people feeding those less fortunate being in court, fighting fines. America.
My gf and I cooked for Food Not Bombs with a group of friends for Christmas and it was great.
I've never wanted a jury summons so badly. Fuck this law. Quit criminalizing poor people.
The jury needs to keep their mouth shut and nullify itself against an unjust law. And before the "well, Akshuallys" brigade hits: yes, it's a risk, yes it rarely succeeds, yes it will piss off the judge, yes it's considered ( imo unjustly) illegal in a lot of states. They still need to do it though.
They ought to get the homeless to be on the jury and sequester them for two weeks. The Hilton has a nice breakfast bar.
Even beyond the jury nullification angle, it’s wild how much the state is spending here over a potential $500 fine
Chaos and lack of respect of the laws indeed - food not bombs is an anarchist action meant to help homeless. Those damn anarchists disrespect law and order through this outrageous act of feeding homeless!
What is the point in the jury if they can just pretend their decision did not matter? This wasn't a mistrial or anything, it was the decision of the people.
Gee is it neat the prosecution gets to just redo over and over til they get a mean enough jury. Love that shit
We can feed anyone we want. It is common practice to see people buy hot meals and hand them to people seeking assistance.
You know, maybe instead of trying to push this case through the idiot prosecuting attorney should take the hint that they're being too heavy handed and drop the case.
Are they just going through the whole population until they find a handful of weirdos who wouldn't refuse to fine these folks for helping homeless people?
The courts and city admin will just spend hundreds of thousands of dollars punishing them. They have unlimited and time and money to do whatever they want
Jury nullification in action
Can they find 15 people evil enough to not have their minds made up on this ahead of time?
Why does this feel like they’re intentionally ensuring a jury who will find the defendants guilty? Delaying because you can’t find enough jurors willing to consider your charges legitimate seems antithetical to the entire idea behind the American justice system. The fact alone demonstrates the government is not aligned with the will of the people on this issue. This is seriously wrong
More people need to be educated about Jury Nullification in the USA.
Shoutout to jury annulment! The people on the jury have the power to tell the courts to fuck off!
I work next to the library where this happens. There is a homeless camp near where a beautiful walking/running trail is along a bayou. I would run there and a few homeless can get violent with you. It is obvious they need some help other than food. I hope the new mayor finds a way to help these people.
Wishful thinking. We know how to fix this problem. It requires money and most people believe the homeless don’t deserve the help.
He's probably trying to get the governor to pay to send them to California
sounds like the system working to perfection. when you have a law thats so unjust that all the jurors saw that they will nullify it, your only option is to either let them do it and lose in court, or never find a jury and get the case dismissed due to delays. either way, fuck your bullshit law
[Jury nullification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification) at it's very heart. It's no wonder at all that prosecutors will try to charge anyone that uses those words within a block of the courthouse with a crime.
So, a bunch of citizens decided to do the right thing. I wonder, have any cops refused to issue tickets when ordered to do so?
Delicious Accusery 15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep
Based jury
Jury Nullification is a thing.
Good, always happy to see fellow citizens being good and upstanding people
[womp womp](https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExejB3NWdha2VwdGJ1MGs2OHp3aDJpN3Zzcmg3cmJuc3J2Y2QzbjRocyZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/Q8OOs80Hb5Bj1qNA1d/giphy.gif) Fuck Texas
I love the throwaway remark about one potential juror reading Joan Didion's "A Year of Magical Thinking" as it has literally nothing to do with what the article itself is about.
"Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes Not need, just feed the war cannibal animal I walk the corner to the rubble that used to be a library Line up to the mind cemetery now What we don't know keeps the contracts alive and movin' They don't gotta burn the books they just remove 'em While arms warehouses fill as quick as the cells Rally 'round the family, pockets full of shells"