something like the casey anthony trial comes to mind though. the jury wanted to convict but needed to act objectively on evidence alone. so they all cringed and cried as they all signed off to acquit or whatever. this would be the opposite, but the idea is the same.
A “guilty” verdict that a judge deems to be lacking evidence and result in the judge giving their verdict that overrides the jury’s. It could also get appealed. So there’s no point of the “guilty” version of Jury Nullification.
In contrast, a “not guilty” verdict cannot be overrulled by the judge, nor can it be appealed. So this version of Jury Nullification is much stronger.
something like the casey anthony trial comes to mind though. the jury wanted to convict but needed to act objectively on evidence alone. so they all cringed and cried as they all signed off to acquit or whatever. this would be the opposite, but the idea is the same.
Different.
A “guilty” verdict that a judge deems to be lacking evidence and result in the judge giving their verdict that overrides the jury’s. It could also get appealed. So there’s no point of the “guilty” version of Jury Nullification.
In contrast, a “not guilty” verdict cannot be overrulled by the judge, nor can it be appealed. So this version of Jury Nullification is much stronger.