Ghislaine Maxwell 'could file for mistrial' after juror reveals he suffered childhood sexual abuse (telegraph.co.uk) Text in comments (link has paywall)
Here is the initial article
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/crime/fl-ne-resiles-juror-speaks-20211210-xkayqv3zwzemfcr6mn2cfeetma-story.html
"they couldn’t agree on a murder charge, according to the jury forewoman, because three members refused to sign off on a verdict that would send a young Black man to prison for the rest of his life."
oh geez.
"The forewoman in the recent trial described herself as a mixed-race Puerto Rican, a 36-year-old wife and mother in a blended family of five children, ranging in age from 3 to 17. When two Black jurors accused her of not caring about the race of the defendant, she said she was tempted to show pictures of her dark-skinned mother and brother."
"But other members of the diverse jury did, she said. And once the narrative set in that she “did not care” about sending a Black man to prison for life, it was impossible to reset it, she said."
The scene, in order to refresh your memory.
So… was that legal? Is there any sort of legal precedent for allowing that to happen? I ask because this show has been praised for it's more nuanced take on the law in comparison to other shows but that somehow seems like a stretch, or at least for Jimmy to come out of that unpunished.
I've surprisingly not found much discussion about this scene except for one lone post in this sub that got very few responses and basically nothing elsewhere. I don't think I should be expecting LegalEagle to react to that one short clip anytime soon, so I'll leave it up to the next best legal professional I know of: you.
Fellow Nadpoles of the Justiceverse, Honorable Justices of the Supreme Crits, May it please the Court:
In the case of the Salty Player vs a Barrel full of DMs, we request a mistrial, on the grounds that neither party in question brought this case to court. With neither the Salty Player nor the DM present, this case is truly a case of Player rats on another Players Search history.
The facts of the case involve the Player who pushed the barrel (“EVELYN SALT”), the Dungeon Master that created this salt factory (“DELAWARE ZINC”), and the Player who brought the case to the court (“FREDO CORLEONE”).
The Honorable Justices ruled to punish EVELYN SALT, and while the logic of their ruling may be sound, this brief posits it is improper to hear a case and dole out punishment solely at the behest of a bystanding party. Additionally, this brief appeals the ruling on the secondary grounds that the statue of limitations should rightfully have expired on such a case, especially in light of the context of FREDO CORLEONE bringing this case to the court.
In the facts presented to the court, CORLEONE notes SALT still searches barrels falling to this day, yet there was no evidence presented that SALT’s search history is brought up with DELAWARE ZINC or at ZINC’s table. There was no evidence or claim of harm to FREDO CORLEONE presented in CORLEONE’s argument. In such context, this ruling sets precedent that FREDO CORLEONE, or a similar party, is free to bring anyone’s search history to this Court to judge, as long as there is a tenuous linkage to a D&D game.
The practice of doling out punishment at the whim of a bystander, when neither directly affected party felt need to bring the case to the Court, is a harmful precedent, and one that could clog up the lower courts with an unmanageable case volume.
Today’s appeal is not about EVELYN SALT’s innocence or guilt. It is not about whether SALT was insufficiently rewarded for passing two consecutive skill checks in the course of one Action. We cannot answer either of those questions, as it is unclear where the Burden of Proof lies with neither party present.
Today’s appeal simply poses the question, can EVELYN SALT rightfully be punished for alleged grievances against DELAWARE ZINC, at the sole behest of FREDO CORLEONE? Can justice be served when neither party is present?
We believe the answer is a resounding “Probs not lmao.” Herefore, we request the Court overturn the previous ruling, vacate the sentence of
... keep reading on reddit ➡