Posted on 12/21/2017 12:03:01 PM PST by COBOL2Java
WASHINGTON — Six protesters cleared of all charges related to riots that broke out on Inauguration Day were jubilant and declared a victory for lawful dissent after a jury found them not guilty Thursday following a monthlong trial.
“People won’t be afraid to show up and go protest and get in the streets and not be worried that they’ll get mass arrested like we did,” said Michelle Macchio, one of the six acquitted defendants. “This sets a really strong precedent that that’s not ok and you can’t criminalize dissent.”
The jury deliberated for a week before delivering its verdict in D.C. Superior Court.
Defendants described their reaction in the courtroom as relief, followed by hugging and sobbing.
“This isn’t just about the six of us. This about the other 188 people that are left to go. … All we can do is hope that these acquittals really set the stage for them to also get acquittals,” Macchio said.
(Excerpt) Read more at wtop.com ...
Trying to get a pro-America jury in the DC area is like trying to get ham ‘n cheese in a Kosher deli.
“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.
DC, the land of the lawless, lost civilization.
What did the judge do? It was a jury trial.
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.
I imagine it was/is a dangerous time to be a Trump person there.
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).
Perhaps because the judge wouldn’t allow the evidence.
They were arrested for rioting and destroying property.
Idiots all.
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.
That’s not the way I interpreted the statement in the article.
Don't worry, next time they won't get a trial. Thanks COBOL2Java.
Judges can nullify.
karma....I believe in it...
They can’t nullify a not guilty verdict from a jury.
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?
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?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.