No, not jury nullification. Our legal system is built on proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This whole thing is a cluster. Jury nullification means that the prosecutor has met the burden of proof and the jury just doesn’t like the law. Beyond a reasonable doubt means that at least one juror does not think that the prosecutor has met the burden.
You believe that the prosecutor has already proved the case when nobody has seen the case.
Prototypes end up where they are not supposed to all the time. At this time it is not clear why that prototype was in a bar and not locked away in a lab. During discovery, the defense is going to get to make a number of Apple employees very uncomfortable. They will make them even more uncomfortable during a trial. If the defense gets their way, they will get a chance to drag Job’s away from making computers and sit in front of a stenographer. This serves two purposes, if they can make things uncomfortable enough, a big company like Apple can make this case go away regardless of what the DA claims. Second, if you get enough depositions, it is easy to start finding inconsistencies creating the seed of doubt to get your client off the hook.
When this little drama has fulfilled everyone’s needs, it will quietly go away.
No, not jury nullification. Our legal system is built on proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The facts that are relevant in the California law are not in dispute by anyone. In fact, the writer puts it all down. It was lost, he buys lost property and pays $5,000 for it.
That meets what the law says about the crime. So, the prosecutor isn't going to have too much problem with that one.
What I'm saying is that if the jury thinks that even though the guy commits a crime according to what the law has specified and they do not convict -- then you've got jury nullification as the jury is not convicting on the basis of the law and the facts which shows the law has been broken.
And that's fine if the jury decides to invoke jury nullification because juries do that. No problem. And that's the one situation in which I see that these guys would get off -- as you describe that they might -- jury nullification...
You believe that the prosecutor has already proved the case when nobody has seen the case.
The writer involved has "made the case" himself by what he's already said. (1) Lost property, (2) buys it for $5,000 -- result "crime committed" according to the law... :-)
When this little drama has fulfilled everyone’s needs, it will quietly go away.
Well, if I know "police" and "prosecutors" -- crimes that they go after "go away" when they get their pound of flesh ... LOL ...
It's called "field testing" and it is done all the time. And it is required before a product is released. There is no reason why one should question what it was doing out in the field. It was being tested by an Apple engineer in real world conditions.