05-30-2024, 02:23 PM
(05-30-2024, 02:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: JFC.
There are three ways the crime COULD be committed. They don't have to agree how it was done...just that it was done.
They found a body that was stabbed and shot. Either could have caused the death. The jury doesn't have to agree which way the the accused killed the victim just that they did it.
Yeah, I get that, you're not getting my point. I'm going to ignore your example because I could go off into the weeds with it. Here is the salient issue. If the jury cannot agree on what happened that flies in the face of a unanimous jury. Unanimity is a key determinant in criminal conviction. If the law as written allows for numerous interpretations of its violation than it is an exceedingly poorly written law. Laws are specific for a reason, as specificity is required to prove a certain crime has occurred. So, while the judge could be correct, and almost certainly is, this level of ambiguity in a criminal law is, again, more fuel for the fire.
I have zero issue with the GA case and the documents case, but this case should never have been brought to trial. Whatever the result it's going to be adding napalm to a house fire. What a shit show.
