Is “Reverse Jury Nullification” In Play? You Bet It Is.

Even though this was about the State of NY trial on something that is not a crime and for which statute of limitations has been exceeded, let’s talk about classified documents and how another individual is treated by the judiciary:

Hur’s report stated that his investigation “uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice-presidency when he was a private citizen.” Yet Hur concluded that “the evidence does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” He reasoned that “at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” In Hur’s view, “it would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him—by then a former president well into his eighties—of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

If you wish to discuss a case about classified documents, you would be best served to start a new thread on that topic.

This is total bullshit. As usual, you make statements based on your opinions which you claim are facts.
The trial is a charade.
Everybody knows a guilty verdict will be thrown out on appeal.
All the jurors are likely loyal democrats.
All the jurors believe think trump is next to the anti-Christ.
And so on and so on and so on.

Everything you whine about is based on your premise democrats can only vote their party line. This is an assumption made by people who can't supply any examples of their claims, believe and advance misinformation without any proof, and demonstrate every trait he falsely accuses democrats of.

Yes, the purpose of a trial is to get a guilty verdict. A grand jury decides if a trial is warranted. A guilty verdict decided by a jury. Having a trial for someone means a charging authority believes a crime (in this case) has occurred and that the charges can be proven (a guilty verdict).
Why would a trial be held for someone if the prosecutor was looking for an innocent verdict?
Of course they're looking for a guilty verdict. One decided by a jury.

So the Jury is about to get the case against Trump.

The verdict will be guilty. Why, since practically every legal “expert” who is not on MSNBC payroll has determined that this entire charade is being played out for one purpose. To get a guilty verdict.See above. But you can't name these "experts".

Guilty. Even though everybody knows the entire case will. Be thrower out on appeal?

Here is why. All of these Jurors are from New York. They are all likely loyal Democrats. They all are likely to believe hat Donald Trump is the next thing to the Anti-Christ.

If any of these Jurors vote not guilty, they will become outcast in their communities. Their sons will suddenly not make the little league team. That application for that exclusive private school will be turned down. You might get turned down for that mortgage, or new car loan. The neighbors will suddenly start letting their dogs shit in your yard.
If everybody is a democrat, who would retaliate?

Every Juror knows how important a guilty verdict is. As loyal democrats, they know what is expected. It’s Party first, Country second. How do I address your level/lack of intelligence? Every juror knows how important a verdict that is arrived at based on the evidence presented at the trial. You don't understand the basic concepts you claim are being violated.

It will be like a Reverse Nullification. Jury nullification generally means a defendant is found innocent even though there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The most famous case of this was the OJ trial.
What happened to the members of the jury in that one? Ask your idol Dershowitz. He doesn't agree with your "nullification theory". He is an attorney. You aren't.
So you have an uninformed "opinion" at best. And no facts.

In this case, the Jury has to convict because they know the consequences if they don’t. The Constitutional Concept of innocent untill proven guilty is thrown right out the window.

Because the only thing that they are thinking is as loyal Democrats, it is their duty to convict. The price of not guilty is too great.

Because that price just might be Donald Trump being President.

Of course, it could all boomerang. A guilty verdict might piss off enough voters who recognize the scam when they see it, and vote for Trump out of revenge for the corrupt system. Originally Posted by Jackie S

You don't even know the facts while claiming all your bullshit. The guilty always claim the system is corrupt.
I'm willing to wait on the decision of the jury. If trump is innocent until proven guilty (as per the Constitution), then the same applies to the jurors. Your bias is obvious and you openly deny them the same treatment you demand for trump.

We'll know soon. The jury is filling out the post verdict forms.