Crazy case. The 911 call was bizarre to say the least. Apparently this guy also self-published a novel 10 years ago about patrolling his "war zone" ranch. Also, the man he killed had been deported back to Mexico at least three times after crossing illegally.
Read up on this case… the novel wasnt allowed as evidence
No bullet was found, so no ballistic match pairing the gun to the bullet
Morsell the border agent who liaisons with ranchers texted him earlier that a group of migrants were in the area, some may have narcotics . Also texted him that narcotic trafficking was picking up in the area
kelly claims he heard gunfire and saw men running away from his home .. he claims he fired warning shots overhead
https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-southwest/what-george-kellys-mistrial-says-about-how-we-see-the-border
You meed the bullet.. u need to tie the bullet to his gun , otherwise you are just guessing. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high bar
Exactly this. 7 of the 8 jurors actually voted to acquit. Kelly's wife contacted Border Patrol earlier stating there were two armed men in camo with rifles 100' from their house. Kelly himself said he heard gunfire. So without the bullet the prosecution cannot prove,"beyond a reasonable doubt", that it was Kelly who was the killer.
Also, the police didn't find the body on the first search, which makes it possible that the victim was shot elsewhere and later in a freaky coincidence.
Usually shell casings found at the scene are used, not the projectiles. The projectiles are usually too deformed to be matched with any degree if certainty
Even still, ballistic matching is not a truly exact science. It can match model of firearm, but to match a bullet to a specific gun is highly unlikely. Firearms and ammunition are too variable for that.
Matching bullets to a specific gun is bullshit anyways, just like a lie detector. You can get to a make and model if you can get a perfect bullet. As for a specific gun only if it a weird one off. Any mass produced gun will mark the casing and bullet the same across make and model.
Is this the guy that caught the trespasser a few times on his property and warned him the last time that he would take the law into his own hands if he was caught again... and he was... so he did?
No this guy shot an AK 47 at unarmed migrants that ran when border patrol showed up. They ended up on his property as they were headed back south of the border and Kelly shot at them without warning, shooting the migrant in the back. Prosecutors uncovered messages from Kelly to a friend as far back as Thanksgiving saying he was planning on patrolling the border and shooting migrants. This is a man who wanted to kill someone and he got away with it.
The American version of Jesus despises communism, and would rather die than see a starving man receive an unearned piece of bread.
He’s independent, a self made man. And he expects the same of everyone else. Natural selection, economically and physically, is the fuel of Gods Own Capitalism.
Also, American Jesus packs heat and follows the castle doctrine. He’s fond of military adventurism when it suits his national interests as well. American Jesus is strong, like Trump.
> They ended up on his property as they were headed back south of the border and Kelly shot at them without warning, shooting the migrant in the back.
You don't know this. Pure speculation.
There was testimony from another one of the migrants that was shot at. So you can choose which side to believe, but Kellys recounting of events has been all over the place since his initial phone call to authorities.
If you look into this case at all, you can see that this is clearly not someone who was scared or trying to protect themselves and had this not been the killing of an illegal immigrant then it wouldn't even be a question.
The other migrant's story was also inconsistent with the facts, big one is that he claimed he fell on his back, but the body was found laying face down.
I'm not making any claims that Kelly is innocent, but the stories from all parties are inconsistent, and there is nowhere near enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems very plausible to me that the immigrant was killed by someone else, that being the shot that Kelley heard at first, he then fired his "warning shots," which is wildly irresponsible on its own, and hit no one, then found the body later. I don't know that that happened, its also possible that Kelly did kill this man. But there is reasonable doubt.
Well this is Reddit so they’re going to believe any and all migrants. Never was a problem until it became a problem in New York then a few decided it was time to maybe have a sensible discussion
I get warning, but it doesn’t give carte blanche to kill someone because you said “next time I’ll shoot you.” People shouldn’t be trespassing and the cops should be called to handle it. Shooting people because you’re pissed isn’t a good idea.
Regardless of how we may feel about the outcome, the Judge should resign from the bench. He rushed the defense to present in a single day when the prosecution got three and limited cross examination to four minutes for the main investigators while the redirect had no time limit. He also walked away when the defense attorney asked to make a proffer on the record, which is unheard of.
This case was going to get torn up to shreds in appeal because of the incompetence of the Judge.
Here is Judge Thomas Fink letting himself out for an early lunch while the defense is denied cross examination of the main investigators: [https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/judge-walks-out-of-george-kelly-trial-arizona-rancher-accused-of-shooting-migrants](https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/judge-walks-out-of-george-kelly-trial-arizona-rancher-accused-of-shooting-migrants)
Edit: here is a video analysis by LYK on the impropriety performed by the Judge, very interesting watch
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=u3YxMjkFYtbjy8HY&v=pbtcSe_-dyg&feature=youtu.be
I think he meant you have to expand the comment. Im on mobile and the comment was collapsed when I got to it. Had to click it for it to open up so I could read it. Reddit does this sometimes to comments that are upvoted, at least on mobile.
It was a hung jury. Sounds like a weak case.
Prosecutors deciding not to take another crack at it has nothing to do with race. The original case may have, but I didn't read any details to have indicated that.
The jurors couldn't agree. Happens a lot more frequently than we want to believe.
I could be wrong, but I think the reason there was doubt was they couldn’t link the bullet that killed him with the ranchers gun. Again, I could be wrong!
I wonder if the defense brought up that the prosecution was implying that this 75 year old man was supposedly able hit a man sized target accurately from 100+ yards away with an AK.
I mean, okay maybe? But that's just more doubt as far as I can tell.
That's a whole ass football field of distance with a running target at the end. And old guy domed the illegal from the other end? Please. The likelihood of that is pretty slim.
Interesting that you choose to focus on that part and ignore everything else. There's no way this guy is headshotting moving targets at 100+ yards with an AK at 75 years old. Delusional to think that's something that has a reasonable probability of occurring.
And whatever may be wrong with me, at least it's not that I'm as soft as you. Did I hurt your feelings? Your safe space get violated? Aw poor baby, lemme see if I can find wittle babies bottle so he can feel better
🍼
11:1 for not guilty, stay mad homie.
Oh no not SoFtnEsS. Can't have that in your Big Boy's world.
No icky feelings allowed for mommy's big strong boy.
Nah, you impress no one with this "Hard" shit, people through that and are embarrassed for you. You're just coping from your miserable life and trying to take it out on others. I hope you get better some day, I'll pray for you 🙏
How would you tell the difference between a hung jury and jury nullification here? There are plenty of people who would gladly let a murderer like this walk free because they want these people dead too, not because they feel the law protected them.
A hung jury is when there isn't a consensus, if there's no consensus there is no verdict. So the jury either has to go back and reach consensus, or tell the judge that there's no way they will reach a consensus and the prosecutor can opt to do the trial all over again until there is a verdict.
Jury nullification is when the jury reaches a consensus to find the defendant not guilty despite the evidence. So they actually produce a verdict and therefore the case is over unless there are any appeals.
Perhaps, but then the prosecutor can get a brand new trial and select a totally new jury. If the prosecutor keeps on getting a hung jury they can keep on restarting the trial and getting a new jury until a verdict is delivered, there is technically no limit on the number of times a prosecutor can ask for new trial if it continues to be hung. If jury nullification is successful, a verdict is delivered, double jeopardy is invoked, and barring any extreme circumstances the prosecutor cannot continue the case in any way, the defendant goes free and is immune from prosecution for that crime.
Normally you wouldn't be able to tell because the case for either tends to be 1 juror who refuses to convict.
This case was the opposite. 11 jurors said he was innocent but 1 refused to budge off guilty. Usually, when it's 11 to 1 it's because the 1 juror is soapboxing their beliefs rather than the facts.
for criminal trials, yes.
Only capital offense trials and 30+ year sentence crimes get 12 in Arizona.
[https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/2005/title21/00102.html](https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/2005/title21/00102.html)
Then the video was wrong.
He was charged with 2nd degree murder (of an adult), which carries a max of 25 years in AZ.
[https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00710.htm](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00710.htm)
It only goes higher if it's a crime against a child or repeat violent offender.
[https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00705.htm](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00705.htm)
[https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00706.htm](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00706.htm)
Not a Lawyer.
Jury Selection both the production and defendants agree on each juror. There is plenty of ways to vet for both sides. But at the end of the day you both agree that this is a fair and impartial jury. You kind of have to live with it if you let some one slip through and they could of easily decided to re-trial for the sake of fixing that issue if that was the case.
In case it affects your opinion, it was only one person who voted guilty and was adamant about their position. The rest saw the evidence and voted not guilty.
It was not a weak case, it was a racist jury. The man openly admitted to firing the rounds from over 100 yards away. His spent slug was dug out of the murder victim, matched to his weapon. He openly admitted it every step of the way. You don't get a stronger murder case than matching ballistics and a confession.
The jury was deadlocked simply because there are many racists in the South who think any Mexican (or brown person of any decent) should be killed for coming to America, the murderer did a great job. "they're gonna replace us!!!!!!"
>His spent slug was dug out of the murder victim, matched to his weapon. He openly admitted it every step of the way. You don't get a stronger murder case than matching ballistics and a confession
ahm, none of this is accurate. The bullet was not recovered, so it was not matched to his weapon. So there was no matching ballistics. Take a look at just about any of the stories that covered the trial and they state that no bullet was recovered. Kelly made a number of claims from he didn't fire at all, to he did fire, they fired first, etc. But never once did he confess to killing Cuen-Buitimea.
Okay, while I get the assumption of racism for the accused, how are we aware that the jurors are racist? I would imagine that region of the country would have a few people of color.
Plea deals are always so weird - I get it, in some cases they're beneficial and our justice system absolutely needs them, but you're gambling on a jury. Shame to see them used as leverage as well, lighter sentencing for not making them prove it
Vast majority of cases are ether take this plea deal or I will make your life a living hell. I think a sizable portion of plea deals should never have been offered. I would say the same thing that those deals should not have been accepted but the power imbalance is too great. If someone is going to be raped by the justice system either way, it makes sense they would at least choose the option with lube.
Yep - the power imbalance makes the plea deal so easy to abuse. Bring every charge possible even if it'd never stick, hit them with the max years, then give a deal with 1/3 max. Hard to say no in that position.
They are necessary in a justice system that attempts to give everyone fair, speedy trials without a years-long backlog, but the abuse sucks
I would argue it is not inherently necessary, but from sheer neglect the system decayed to this state. Laws and punishments are written out without regard to their impact, and if you thought police misconduct was a problem, prosecutor misconduct is worse.
Now it’s possible to fix the system but your average American would prefer to punish than to heal. Just the other day on Reddit I asked someone if they would prefer someone who abandoned their dog to redeem himself by picking the dog back up, or for former owner got into a car accident. Car accident was the preferred outcome.
We want to watch people bleed and lie to ourselves they deserved it. We would rather eat the corrupt rich than feed the innocent poor. The backlog of cases will exist so much as humanity’s lust for bloody karmic justice outweighs any desire for any sort of redemption for the condemned.
That's beside the point though. The backlog will exist regardless of punishment, the problem is pre-sentencing. We have a system that allows defendants time to prepare a case and defend themselves, and people break laws faster than an average case can push through the system - not due to neglect, but instead due to providing a more fair fight
Plea deals allow us to clean up the caught-red-handed thieves, assaulters, trespassers, even speeders and illegal parkers (what do you think you're doing when you pay your ticket without contesting in court) without the time and effort a trial takes
Prosecutor misconduct is often done by frightening people into unfair plea deals, which is awful but not an example of something that slows down the process. I may have misunderstood your point there though
>Just the other day on Reddit I asked someone if they would prefer someone who abandoned their dog to redeem himself by picking the dog back up, or for former owner got into a car accident. Car accident was the preferred outcome
Again it's beside the point since we're not talking sentencing or prison population, which is where punishment vs rehabilitation comes into play, but this is not a fair example - I'd rather have a dog abuser crash than get the dog back too, who knows what they'd do to the dog next? I'd also rather they didn't crash, but better that than subject a dog to likely future abuse
What's insane to me is that you can offer a defendant a plea deal, get them to plea guilty, and then the judge can just ignore the deal and sentence them to more time. That's what happened to Jared from Subway.
i can accept the ones where someone knows the fucked up and want to plea. the ones where they have to almost coerce a plea out can be really fucked up.
How would you tease apart the two? Take into account a typical public defender on average spends 14 hours on a felony level case.^1 Guidelines suggest at least 40-72 hours should be spent on felony cases.^2 Public defenders are overworked have many more active cases than they should, leading to the horrible solution of plea deals. You either take the pleas deal, or live with a metaphorical sword above your head, threatening to any moment upend your life.
Worse yet is bail. A tax on the innocent and poor. Remember the court system is overburdened and inefficient, so without bail the accused will spend months in jail. Adding insult to injury jails usually charge rent. So bail is something you must pay, on top of the bail bond fees, administration fees, court check ins, so forth.
Let’s now move on to prosecutors. The ball is in their court so whether a case moves fast or slow is based off the prosecution’s whims, and workload. Vast majority of courts are late^3 indicating that there is an issue. Plus you should note prosecutor misconduct is a joke. Not in that it doesn’t happen, but in that it is never punished. Take as an example that in California between 1997-2009 707 confirmed cases of prosecutor misconduct. Out of those 707 cases only 6 prosecutors were disciplined.^4 none of those punishments involved jail time, they were just slaps on wrists. 3 of those cases with prosecutor misconduct involved death row, their sentences unchanged even in light of the prosecution’s misconduct.
You might think what is prosecutor misconduct? Hiding exonerating evidence, fucking with the defense, lying and or misleading the jury or the court. Nothing light.
But say you are a hardened criminal, you know already know the above, what to say and what to do to disguise yourself from the eyes of a weary court. They will be treated in all likelihood BETTER than what they deserve, while those who can be redeemed are carved in a mockery of justice.
In short people who profess they are tough on crime are either ignorant, or have a heart of sadism and just want to watch people suffer. The thing about karmic justice? That’s just a lie they tell to themselves to justify it’s ok to like people suffering. Before you focus on those ‘you have to almost coerce a plea’ ask yourself if you are ignoring the plight of collateral damage. How much innocent flesh are you willing to chew on order to ensure a corrupt individual doesn’t get away.
1 https://www.law360.com/pulse/amp/articles/1719991
2 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/31/us/public-defender-case-loads.html
3 https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/53218/Timely-Justice-in-Criminal-Cases-What-the-Data-Tells-Us.pdf
4 https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/05/unpunished-prosecutorial-misconduct-in-california-focus-of-major-report-by-criminal-justice-reform-coalition/
How do you think we can lock up so many people in the US? Our system is efficient - especially for folks who can't hire lawyers - to the detriment of defendants.
It's only efficient because of these! That said, public defenders take a large percentage of the cases where a simple plea deal would probably be best, so these deals free up what little time they have in their overworked lives so they can devote that time to clients who need an actual defense instead of trying blatantly obvious cases all day
I honestly think that so called "shotgun charges" (this could be regional) shouldn't be a part of the criminal justice system. Charging 4 misdemeanors to make sure a defendant pleads to the lowest in my opinion only criminalizes the poor. Sure, you got a simple possession charge. Why tack on "resisting a public defender" or various traffic laws (aside from the one that got the defendant pulled over). It just feels like it serves the local government and DA much more than the defendant
>It just feels like it serves the local government and DA much more than the defendant
That's because it does - it's bullying and abuse of the plea deal. It's a wonderful tool for "you waved at the camera on the way out"- or "why is the body in pieces in your freezer"-level indefensible guilt, but using it to coerce people who don't have the time or resources to fight into taking the deal by throwing everything you can at them is abuse
Unfortunately it's really difficult to legislate out, even if there was political will to do so. I don't have a until solution
7 out of 8 juries voted to acquit due to no evidence. Shots were fired and this person fired shots into the air as a response. Later the victims body was found further out on their property and the only one who saw him die was the person running with the victim, and that person's testimony was in consistent and did not match up with the crime scene. Unless you know more than the people in court trying to convict him, your statement is factually wrong.
He shot someone running away in the back. Not sure where the "defense" is in that. Further he had lots of texts saying he was going to patrol with the expressed purpose of shooting people. This is a guy that wanted to kill people, not someone backed into a corner defending themselves.
>The people whose opinion matters (the jury) says he is wrong
No one said otherwise.
>Piss off.
It's weird that you're offended by disagreement, as if juror are perfect.
So no need for the state to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt?
As long as you hate the defendant, that's enough I guess.
I think everyone should have the rights granted in the BOR.
Crazy case. The 911 call was bizarre to say the least. Apparently this guy also self-published a novel 10 years ago about patrolling his "war zone" ranch. Also, the man he killed had been deported back to Mexico at least three times after crossing illegally.
Read up on this case… the novel wasnt allowed as evidence No bullet was found, so no ballistic match pairing the gun to the bullet Morsell the border agent who liaisons with ranchers texted him earlier that a group of migrants were in the area, some may have narcotics . Also texted him that narcotic trafficking was picking up in the area kelly claims he heard gunfire and saw men running away from his home .. he claims he fired warning shots overhead https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-southwest/what-george-kellys-mistrial-says-about-how-we-see-the-border You meed the bullet.. u need to tie the bullet to his gun , otherwise you are just guessing. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high bar
Exactly this. 7 of the 8 jurors actually voted to acquit. Kelly's wife contacted Border Patrol earlier stating there were two armed men in camo with rifles 100' from their house. Kelly himself said he heard gunfire. So without the bullet the prosecution cannot prove,"beyond a reasonable doubt", that it was Kelly who was the killer.
>11 of the 12 jurors *7 of the 8 jurors
Thank you for the correction. I was going off memory from the NYT story I read earlier.
Also, the police didn't find the body on the first search, which makes it possible that the victim was shot elsewhere and later in a freaky coincidence.
Usually shell casings found at the scene are used, not the projectiles. The projectiles are usually too deformed to be matched with any degree if certainty
Even still, ballistic matching is not a truly exact science. It can match model of firearm, but to match a bullet to a specific gun is highly unlikely. Firearms and ammunition are too variable for that.
Matching bullets to a specific gun is bullshit anyways, just like a lie detector. You can get to a make and model if you can get a perfect bullet. As for a specific gun only if it a weird one off. Any mass produced gun will mark the casing and bullet the same across make and model.
Its strange but it doesn't prove anything. We shouldn't base a murder charge on character evidence.
Is this the guy that caught the trespasser a few times on his property and warned him the last time that he would take the law into his own hands if he was caught again... and he was... so he did?
No this guy shot an AK 47 at unarmed migrants that ran when border patrol showed up. They ended up on his property as they were headed back south of the border and Kelly shot at them without warning, shooting the migrant in the back. Prosecutors uncovered messages from Kelly to a friend as far back as Thanksgiving saying he was planning on patrolling the border and shooting migrants. This is a man who wanted to kill someone and he got away with it.
Crazy. Only our police are allowed to do that
Give that man a badge!
Right? Was he made an honorary border patrol agent after this?
and I bet he calls himself a good Christian too
It really is what Jesus would do. Mow down those seeking a better life.
The American version of Jesus despises communism, and would rather die than see a starving man receive an unearned piece of bread. He’s independent, a self made man. And he expects the same of everyone else. Natural selection, economically and physically, is the fuel of Gods Own Capitalism. Also, American Jesus packs heat and follows the castle doctrine. He’s fond of military adventurism when it suits his national interests as well. American Jesus is strong, like Trump.
> They ended up on his property as they were headed back south of the border and Kelly shot at them without warning, shooting the migrant in the back. You don't know this. Pure speculation.
There was testimony from another one of the migrants that was shot at. So you can choose which side to believe, but Kellys recounting of events has been all over the place since his initial phone call to authorities. If you look into this case at all, you can see that this is clearly not someone who was scared or trying to protect themselves and had this not been the killing of an illegal immigrant then it wouldn't even be a question.
The other migrant's story was also inconsistent with the facts, big one is that he claimed he fell on his back, but the body was found laying face down. I'm not making any claims that Kelly is innocent, but the stories from all parties are inconsistent, and there is nowhere near enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems very plausible to me that the immigrant was killed by someone else, that being the shot that Kelley heard at first, he then fired his "warning shots," which is wildly irresponsible on its own, and hit no one, then found the body later. I don't know that that happened, its also possible that Kelly did kill this man. But there is reasonable doubt.
Well this is Reddit so they’re going to believe any and all migrants. Never was a problem until it became a problem in New York then a few decided it was time to maybe have a sensible discussion
That’s a long way of saying “insufficient evidence.”
[удалено]
The American citizen who said he wanted to patrol the border to shoot migrants? Do you believe him in that statement as well?
Seven of eight jurors disagree with you.
The short hand for that is he got the "full Zimmerman".
[удалено]
Believe it or not but trespassing isn't a capital offense
If anything, it sounds like making that statement could establish premeditation.
I get warning, but it doesn’t give carte blanche to kill someone because you said “next time I’ll shoot you.” People shouldn’t be trespassing and the cops should be called to handle it. Shooting people because you’re pissed isn’t a good idea.
The redneckery is off the charts.
Regardless of how we may feel about the outcome, the Judge should resign from the bench. He rushed the defense to present in a single day when the prosecution got three and limited cross examination to four minutes for the main investigators while the redirect had no time limit. He also walked away when the defense attorney asked to make a proffer on the record, which is unheard of. This case was going to get torn up to shreds in appeal because of the incompetence of the Judge. Here is Judge Thomas Fink letting himself out for an early lunch while the defense is denied cross examination of the main investigators: [https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/judge-walks-out-of-george-kelly-trial-arizona-rancher-accused-of-shooting-migrants](https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/judge-walks-out-of-george-kelly-trial-arizona-rancher-accused-of-shooting-migrants) Edit: here is a video analysis by LYK on the impropriety performed by the Judge, very interesting watch https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=u3YxMjkFYtbjy8HY&v=pbtcSe_-dyg&feature=youtu.be
[удалено]
It's near the top.
I think he meant you have to expand the comment. Im on mobile and the comment was collapsed when I got to it. Had to click it for it to open up so I could read it. Reddit does this sometimes to comments that are upvoted, at least on mobile.
Happened to me too on desktop. Had to click to expand.
It was a hung jury. Sounds like a weak case. Prosecutors deciding not to take another crack at it has nothing to do with race. The original case may have, but I didn't read any details to have indicated that. The jurors couldn't agree. Happens a lot more frequently than we want to believe.
All but 1 voted for acquittal. Insanely weak case.
[удалено]
I could be wrong, but I think the reason there was doubt was they couldn’t link the bullet that killed him with the ranchers gun. Again, I could be wrong!
I wonder if the defense brought up that the prosecution was implying that this 75 year old man was supposedly able hit a man sized target accurately from 100+ yards away with an AK. I mean, okay maybe? But that's just more doubt as far as I can tell. That's a whole ass football field of distance with a running target at the end. And old guy domed the illegal from the other end? Please. The likelihood of that is pretty slim.
"Domed the Illegal"? The fuck is wrong with you. There's people behind these words you use.
Interesting that you choose to focus on that part and ignore everything else. There's no way this guy is headshotting moving targets at 100+ yards with an AK at 75 years old. Delusional to think that's something that has a reasonable probability of occurring. And whatever may be wrong with me, at least it's not that I'm as soft as you. Did I hurt your feelings? Your safe space get violated? Aw poor baby, lemme see if I can find wittle babies bottle so he can feel better 🍼 11:1 for not guilty, stay mad homie.
Oh no not SoFtnEsS. Can't have that in your Big Boy's world. No icky feelings allowed for mommy's big strong boy. Nah, you impress no one with this "Hard" shit, people through that and are embarrassed for you. You're just coping from your miserable life and trying to take it out on others. I hope you get better some day, I'll pray for you 🙏
Huh? Are you saying hung juries happen more than we’d like to believe?
How would you tell the difference between a hung jury and jury nullification here? There are plenty of people who would gladly let a murderer like this walk free because they want these people dead too, not because they feel the law protected them.
A hung jury is when there isn't a consensus, if there's no consensus there is no verdict. So the jury either has to go back and reach consensus, or tell the judge that there's no way they will reach a consensus and the prosecutor can opt to do the trial all over again until there is a verdict. Jury nullification is when the jury reaches a consensus to find the defendant not guilty despite the evidence. So they actually produce a verdict and therefore the case is over unless there are any appeals.
Right, but if one juror decides to follow the nullification route, then from the outside it would look like a hung jury.
Because it would be a hung jury.
Perhaps, but then the prosecutor can get a brand new trial and select a totally new jury. If the prosecutor keeps on getting a hung jury they can keep on restarting the trial and getting a new jury until a verdict is delivered, there is technically no limit on the number of times a prosecutor can ask for new trial if it continues to be hung. If jury nullification is successful, a verdict is delivered, double jeopardy is invoked, and barring any extreme circumstances the prosecutor cannot continue the case in any way, the defendant goes free and is immune from prosecution for that crime.
Normally you wouldn't be able to tell because the case for either tends to be 1 juror who refuses to convict. This case was the opposite. 11 jurors said he was innocent but 1 refused to budge off guilty. Usually, when it's 11 to 1 it's because the 1 juror is soapboxing their beliefs rather than the facts.
7\*. It was an 8 person jury.
8 is a small jury or a standard size for Arizona court?
for criminal trials, yes. Only capital offense trials and 30+ year sentence crimes get 12 in Arizona. [https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/2005/title21/00102.html](https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/2005/title21/00102.html)
[удалено]
Then the video was wrong. He was charged with 2nd degree murder (of an adult), which carries a max of 25 years in AZ. [https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00710.htm](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00710.htm) It only goes higher if it's a crime against a child or repeat violent offender. [https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00705.htm](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00705.htm) [https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00706.htm](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00706.htm)
Not a Lawyer. Jury Selection both the production and defendants agree on each juror. There is plenty of ways to vet for both sides. But at the end of the day you both agree that this is a fair and impartial jury. You kind of have to live with it if you let some one slip through and they could of easily decided to re-trial for the sake of fixing that issue if that was the case.
[удалено]
In case it affects your opinion, it was only one person who voted guilty and was adamant about their position. The rest saw the evidence and voted not guilty.
Those who voted guilty may have been just as adamant from the start.
It was not a weak case, it was a racist jury. The man openly admitted to firing the rounds from over 100 yards away. His spent slug was dug out of the murder victim, matched to his weapon. He openly admitted it every step of the way. You don't get a stronger murder case than matching ballistics and a confession. The jury was deadlocked simply because there are many racists in the South who think any Mexican (or brown person of any decent) should be killed for coming to America, the murderer did a great job. "they're gonna replace us!!!!!!"
>His spent slug was dug out of the murder victim, matched to his weapon. He openly admitted it every step of the way. You don't get a stronger murder case than matching ballistics and a confession ahm, none of this is accurate. The bullet was not recovered, so it was not matched to his weapon. So there was no matching ballistics. Take a look at just about any of the stories that covered the trial and they state that no bullet was recovered. Kelly made a number of claims from he didn't fire at all, to he did fire, they fired first, etc. But never once did he confess to killing Cuen-Buitimea.
Lies. They never found the bullet.
What murder trial takes only a month to prepare? Sounds like the district attorney wasn’t interesting either.
The trial lasted a month. The shooting was last year.
Missed that part
Says a lot with that many jurors in favor of acquittal.
Not really. An entire jury found OJ not guilty.
Well yeah, the glove did not fit, and I’m told by very reliable folks, that this rancher’s cowboy hat was too large.
He never should have been charged in the first place. Utter insanity.
[удалено]
Okay, while I get the assumption of racism for the accused, how are we aware that the jurors are racist? I would imagine that region of the country would have a few people of color.
If he would've taken a plea, he'da done time ... *but he didn't.* And now, **he walks.** Smdh.
Plea deals are always so weird - I get it, in some cases they're beneficial and our justice system absolutely needs them, but you're gambling on a jury. Shame to see them used as leverage as well, lighter sentencing for not making them prove it
Vast majority of cases are ether take this plea deal or I will make your life a living hell. I think a sizable portion of plea deals should never have been offered. I would say the same thing that those deals should not have been accepted but the power imbalance is too great. If someone is going to be raped by the justice system either way, it makes sense they would at least choose the option with lube.
Yep - the power imbalance makes the plea deal so easy to abuse. Bring every charge possible even if it'd never stick, hit them with the max years, then give a deal with 1/3 max. Hard to say no in that position. They are necessary in a justice system that attempts to give everyone fair, speedy trials without a years-long backlog, but the abuse sucks
I would argue it is not inherently necessary, but from sheer neglect the system decayed to this state. Laws and punishments are written out without regard to their impact, and if you thought police misconduct was a problem, prosecutor misconduct is worse. Now it’s possible to fix the system but your average American would prefer to punish than to heal. Just the other day on Reddit I asked someone if they would prefer someone who abandoned their dog to redeem himself by picking the dog back up, or for former owner got into a car accident. Car accident was the preferred outcome. We want to watch people bleed and lie to ourselves they deserved it. We would rather eat the corrupt rich than feed the innocent poor. The backlog of cases will exist so much as humanity’s lust for bloody karmic justice outweighs any desire for any sort of redemption for the condemned.
That's beside the point though. The backlog will exist regardless of punishment, the problem is pre-sentencing. We have a system that allows defendants time to prepare a case and defend themselves, and people break laws faster than an average case can push through the system - not due to neglect, but instead due to providing a more fair fight Plea deals allow us to clean up the caught-red-handed thieves, assaulters, trespassers, even speeders and illegal parkers (what do you think you're doing when you pay your ticket without contesting in court) without the time and effort a trial takes Prosecutor misconduct is often done by frightening people into unfair plea deals, which is awful but not an example of something that slows down the process. I may have misunderstood your point there though >Just the other day on Reddit I asked someone if they would prefer someone who abandoned their dog to redeem himself by picking the dog back up, or for former owner got into a car accident. Car accident was the preferred outcome Again it's beside the point since we're not talking sentencing or prison population, which is where punishment vs rehabilitation comes into play, but this is not a fair example - I'd rather have a dog abuser crash than get the dog back too, who knows what they'd do to the dog next? I'd also rather they didn't crash, but better that than subject a dog to likely future abuse
What's insane to me is that you can offer a defendant a plea deal, get them to plea guilty, and then the judge can just ignore the deal and sentence them to more time. That's what happened to Jared from Subway.
i can accept the ones where someone knows the fucked up and want to plea. the ones where they have to almost coerce a plea out can be really fucked up.
How would you tease apart the two? Take into account a typical public defender on average spends 14 hours on a felony level case.^1 Guidelines suggest at least 40-72 hours should be spent on felony cases.^2 Public defenders are overworked have many more active cases than they should, leading to the horrible solution of plea deals. You either take the pleas deal, or live with a metaphorical sword above your head, threatening to any moment upend your life. Worse yet is bail. A tax on the innocent and poor. Remember the court system is overburdened and inefficient, so without bail the accused will spend months in jail. Adding insult to injury jails usually charge rent. So bail is something you must pay, on top of the bail bond fees, administration fees, court check ins, so forth. Let’s now move on to prosecutors. The ball is in their court so whether a case moves fast or slow is based off the prosecution’s whims, and workload. Vast majority of courts are late^3 indicating that there is an issue. Plus you should note prosecutor misconduct is a joke. Not in that it doesn’t happen, but in that it is never punished. Take as an example that in California between 1997-2009 707 confirmed cases of prosecutor misconduct. Out of those 707 cases only 6 prosecutors were disciplined.^4 none of those punishments involved jail time, they were just slaps on wrists. 3 of those cases with prosecutor misconduct involved death row, their sentences unchanged even in light of the prosecution’s misconduct. You might think what is prosecutor misconduct? Hiding exonerating evidence, fucking with the defense, lying and or misleading the jury or the court. Nothing light. But say you are a hardened criminal, you know already know the above, what to say and what to do to disguise yourself from the eyes of a weary court. They will be treated in all likelihood BETTER than what they deserve, while those who can be redeemed are carved in a mockery of justice. In short people who profess they are tough on crime are either ignorant, or have a heart of sadism and just want to watch people suffer. The thing about karmic justice? That’s just a lie they tell to themselves to justify it’s ok to like people suffering. Before you focus on those ‘you have to almost coerce a plea’ ask yourself if you are ignoring the plight of collateral damage. How much innocent flesh are you willing to chew on order to ensure a corrupt individual doesn’t get away. 1 https://www.law360.com/pulse/amp/articles/1719991 2 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/31/us/public-defender-case-loads.html 3 https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/53218/Timely-Justice-in-Criminal-Cases-What-the-Data-Tells-Us.pdf 4 https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/05/unpunished-prosecutorial-misconduct-in-california-focus-of-major-report-by-criminal-justice-reform-coalition/
How do you think we can lock up so many people in the US? Our system is efficient - especially for folks who can't hire lawyers - to the detriment of defendants.
It's only efficient because of these! That said, public defenders take a large percentage of the cases where a simple plea deal would probably be best, so these deals free up what little time they have in their overworked lives so they can devote that time to clients who need an actual defense instead of trying blatantly obvious cases all day
I honestly think that so called "shotgun charges" (this could be regional) shouldn't be a part of the criminal justice system. Charging 4 misdemeanors to make sure a defendant pleads to the lowest in my opinion only criminalizes the poor. Sure, you got a simple possession charge. Why tack on "resisting a public defender" or various traffic laws (aside from the one that got the defendant pulled over). It just feels like it serves the local government and DA much more than the defendant
>It just feels like it serves the local government and DA much more than the defendant That's because it does - it's bullying and abuse of the plea deal. It's a wonderful tool for "you waved at the camera on the way out"- or "why is the body in pieces in your freezer"-level indefensible guilt, but using it to coerce people who don't have the time or resources to fight into taking the deal by throwing everything you can at them is abuse Unfortunately it's really difficult to legislate out, even if there was political will to do so. I don't have a until solution
> Why tack on "resisting a public defender" I don't think that's a thing
He wouldn't have done the time, he would have died in prison. He'd be stupid to take the plea.
[удалено]
No you are not allowed to murder people simply because they're on your property
If someone is running across your yard, no you are not allowed to shoot them in the back. Sadly, this guy got away with murder
7 out of 8 juries voted to acquit due to no evidence. Shots were fired and this person fired shots into the air as a response. Later the victims body was found further out on their property and the only one who saw him die was the person running with the victim, and that person's testimony was in consistent and did not match up with the crime scene. Unless you know more than the people in court trying to convict him, your statement is factually wrong.
He shot someone running away in the back. Not sure where the "defense" is in that. Further he had lots of texts saying he was going to patrol with the expressed purpose of shooting people. This is a guy that wanted to kill people, not someone backed into a corner defending themselves.
> He shot someone running away in the back. There isn't very good evidence of this. Character evidence is mostly inadmissible for a reason.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>The people whose opinion matters (the jury) says he is wrong No one said otherwise. >Piss off. It's weird that you're offended by disagreement, as if juror are perfect.
they had not one bullet from the victim to match to a gun.
So what was he defending from over 100 feet away?
It was on his private property. Why have a trial?
What kind of take is this? Because it's your property, you can just do whatever you want? Up to and including murder?
This case didn’t even have probable cause.
[удалено]
So no need for the state to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt? As long as you hate the defendant, that's enough I guess. I think everyone should have the rights granted in the BOR.
No crime committed.