home  bbs  files  messages ]

      ZZUK4448             uk.legal.moderated             12811 messages      

[ previous | next | reply ]

[ list messages | list forums ]

  Msg # 12499 of 12811 on ZZUK4448, Monday 8-17-25, 6:32  
  From: NORMAN WELLS  
  To: ALL  
  Subj: Re: Ricky Jones...  
 From: hex@unseen.ac.am 
  
 On 17/08/2025 12:55, GB wrote: 
 > On 17/08/2025 09:10, Pancho wrote: 
 > 
 >> So the question remains, why did Lucy Connolly plead guilty when there 
 >> was a reasonable chance a jury would acquit her? 
 > 
 > The evidence against Lucy Connolly was very strong. There was no getting 
 > away from the fact that she typed those words. She wasn't suggesting she 
 > lent her computer to someone else, who impersonated her, for example. 
 > So, I don't think there was any sensible defence. 
 > 
 > I think you are suggesting that, had it gone to trial, the jury might 
 > have disregarded the very strong evidence and found her not guilty. That 
 > is a possibility, but is it actually a 'reasonable chance'? 
  
 It would be a perverse verdict she would have been gambling on getting. 
 And the chances of that are very slim, especially if there's no precedent. 
  
 > I honestly don't know. She'd have needed at least 3 jurors who decided 
 > out of sympathy with her views to disregard their vows and acquit her. 
 > Then, she'd have needed to repeat that trick at a retrial. 
  
 And it's not quite as simple as, say, a secret vote of all the jurors 
 with no discussion.  The jury is instructed to come to a unanimous 
 verdict after careful consideration of the case.  It will only be 
 allowed to come to a majority verdict if the judge is satisfied that 
 they have tried and failed, and they can only come to no verdict in 
 extremis after they have made all possible efforts. 
  
 Considerable social pressure and reasoning will be brought to bear in 
 the jury room on any small minority by the other members.  And the 
 minority may well change their minds and go along with the others to 
 allow at least a majority verdict when they see that theirs isn't the 
 only view and they're going to be outgunned anyway. 
  
 > Would that chance be worth a 33% increase in the sentence if she didn't 
 > pull it off? 
 Well, it's actually a 50% increase.  A sentence of three years could be 
 reduced by a third to 2 years, but 3 years are 50% longer than 2. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2) 

[ list messages | list forums | previous | next | reply ]

search for:

328,100 visits
(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca