the prosecution would just file for mistrial and try again.
edit:
I love armchair paralegal dropouts that keep saying, “ah ah! gotcha!” and then continue to absolutely shred a ten word generalization about how “that’s not how law works buddy”.
sounds like someone doesn’t realize that lawyers pay attention to juries while the case is tried and can file for mistrial due to some fabricated context of jury contamination through media before a verdict is given.
Once the trial begins, it’s not a easy for the prosecution to get a mistral without prejudice attached. There have to be grounds on which the mistral is based.
“We’re going to lose because the jury is going to rule against us” is not adequate grounds for a mistrial.
the prosecution would just file for mistrial and try again.
edit:
I love armchair paralegal dropouts that keep saying, “ah ah! gotcha!” and then continue to absolutely shred a ten word generalization about how “that’s not how law works buddy”.
The prosecution doesn’t get to file for mistrial after a jury has rendered its verdict
you are correct, but if you hire a lawyer instead of a wet sponge they can feel the jury out and file mistrial during proceedings.
I think this would require a hung jury
Sounds like someone learned about US laws in US schools.
sounds like someone doesn’t realize that lawyers pay attention to juries while the case is tried and can file for mistrial due to some fabricated context of jury contamination through media before a verdict is given.
Once the trial begins, it’s not a easy for the prosecution to get a mistral without prejudice attached. There have to be grounds on which the mistral is based.
“We’re going to lose because the jury is going to rule against us” is not adequate grounds for a mistrial.
Can’t mistrial a jury verdict.
so lawyers are dumb as fuck and can’t clearly tell a jury is going to slamdunk them?
thats what jury selection is ment to stop. But after that, gloves off.