6 protesters acquitted of rioting, related charges stemming from Inauguration Day

WTOP News [Washington DC] ^ | December 21, 2017 2:30 pm | Amanda Iacone and Megan Cloherty

[JimRed]

Trying to get a pro-America jury in the DC area is like trying to get ham ‘n cheese in a Kosher deli.

[Pirate Ragnar]

“Next time somebody I dont like gets elected I am going break every window and burn every building I see”

Not the ones with “colored” painted on the window.

[veracious]

DC, the land of the lawless, lost civilization.

[WayneS]

What did the judge do? It was a jury trial.

[WayneS]

Prosecutors acknowledged that they had no evidence that the six defendants wielded hammers or crowbars, or threw bricks at police officer...

I guess they would have been more likely to get a conviction if they had actual evidence against the individuals who were on trial. I despise "protesters" who destroy public and private property, but I still would not vote to convict someone unless I was presented with evidence of their guilt.

[ichabod1]

I imagine it was/is a dangerous time to be a Trump person there.

[Flaming Conservative]

The judge had a legal obligation to explain to that jury that if it was proven the defendants did what they were accused of, then they MUST convict. The idea that a jury is allowed to declare someone”not guilty”, when the burden of proof is met, is ridiculous. Otherwise, we have no protection that proven criminals can be set free, arbitrarily, by a jury, who due to politics want them to go free. (I know. It happens more than we’d like, but that doesn’t make it right).

[AppyPappy]

Perhaps because the judge wouldn’t allow the evidence.

[HotHunt]

These ner-do-wells weren't arrested for protesting.

They were arrested for rioting and destroying property.

Idiots all.

[WayneS]

The idea that a jury is allowed to declare someone”not guilty”, when the burden of proof is met, is ridiculous.

I disagree. Requiring a jury to convict someone is ridiculous.

Jury nullification is a valid method by which citizens can protest unjust laws. Under the law, the jury is "allowed" to do whatever their conscience tells them to do, even if you and I don't like it.

To have it any other way would pervert our justice system. Our legal system is intentionally biased in favor of the defendant, not the prosecution.

Whether we think these particular people are guilty or not is irrelevant. Having to live with occasional instances where the guilty are not punished as much as I would like them to be is a small price to pay to protect individual rights.

I would not want to live in a country where the justice system was biased in favor of the government/prosecutors.

[WayneS]

That’s not the way I interpreted the statement in the article.

[SunkenCiv]

Don't worry, next time they won't get a trial. Thanks COBOL2Java.

[ex91B10]

Judges can nullify.

[cherry]

of course they're DC blacks...its set up that way....

karma....I believe in it...

[WayneS]

They can’t nullify a not guilty verdict from a jury.

[Tallguy]

I would think that with about 200 arrests that the prosecutors have broken up the trials by charges and strength of evidence. Question is did they bring their strongest case first or are they going in reverse order?

[Tallguy]

I would think that with about 200 arrests that the prosecutors have broken up the trials by charges and strength of evidence. Question is did they bring their strongest case first or are they going in reverse order?