Posted on 04/23/2024 9:37:09 AM PDT by servo1969
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4232996/posts
with the info provide by Legal Insurrection.
I find it interesting that a single juror held out for a conviction. To me, that indicates a bias going in.
This whole prosecution was about the Federal Government showing the residents of Southern Arizona that illegal aliens are a preferred constituency who are above the law and to intimidate American citizens living on the border into not getting in the way of the illegal alien invasion and the cartel human and drug trafficking.
This was the most dishonest, bad faith prosecution I have seen in a very long time.
Well....Except for the 4 Trump trials and all of the J6 BS.
The cartel wants this rancher to give up and sell out.
> This was the most dishonest, bad faith prosecution I have seen in a very long time.
Until the next one.
This was the most dishonest, bad faith prosecution I have seen in a very long time.
If it’s a Rat Party DA he’ll surely be tried again.
The Kelly prosecution at least had an actual crime and a dead body associated with it.
It's just that it was a malicious prosecution of an innocent man by agenda driven Biden prosecutors.
Yep, you can bet it was one guy who wanted to stick it to the white gringo
AND NOW Biden’s DOJ will show up for the “civil rights violation” trial.
So, I assume they’ll keep trying again since the jury didn’t reach a verdict? I hope not, but I won’t hold my breath.
Or, the cartel made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.
“I find it interesting that a single juror held out for a conviction. To me, that indicates a bias going in.”
Perhaps. But were it just one juror holding out for acquittal would you say the same?
That's a good sign, this was a malicious persecution (Kangaroo Prosecution) of Kelley.
Not necessarily. Our system requires the presumption of innocence. What evidence convinced a single juror to vote for conviction? Evidence that didn’t sway the 7 other jurors.
“What evidence convinced a single juror to vote for conviction? “
People are weird. The lone juror may have thought ‘he looked guilty’ or some other non-evidentiary nonsense.
Or perhaps he/she thought that he was guilty simply because the police had arrested and prosecuted him. That used to be a prevailing opinion right here on FR not so many years ago.
I don’t recall any cases where a lone juror held out for conviction. Acquittal yes, but conviction no. I strongly suspect bias. My experience with several dozen juries makes me think that way.
3
Right. They have no proof they guy was killed by a bullet from Kelly. It’s just, “Old white guy, probably racist, shot off his gun, so he must have shot him.” That’s the sum total of the state’s evidence.
Alone sure was a hold out for guilty? I wonder what her name is.
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.