Appeals up the court chain all the way to the Supreme Court may mitigate that. To get to an appeal or the Supreme Court the case must first be heard somewhere else.
In the end, nothing will matter until the Supreme Court decides, because both sides will appeal until it gets there.
Those facts determine certain things, like whether it is lawful to hold a trial at all.
In fact, those facts can be used in other trials.
See, the way it works, is you need to have a law, you need to have facts that the law was broken, and you need the jury to convict. If you are missing any of those, there can be no conviction. So a bad jury can't convict someone when there are no facts or no laws being broken.
That said, a bad jury can certainly exonerate someone since we have the double jeopardy rule in the constitution.
If the Judge and Jury pool are tainted\corrupted, then no amount of evidence will affect the pre-ordered outcome. Convince me I am wrong!
If the trial is televised, then public opinion can be a factor.
Appeals up the court chain all the way to the Supreme Court may mitigate that. To get to an appeal or the Supreme Court the case must first be heard somewhere else.
In the end, nothing will matter until the Supreme Court decides, because both sides will appeal until it gets there.
False.
In the trial, you establish facts.
Those facts determine certain things, like whether it is lawful to hold a trial at all.
In fact, those facts can be used in other trials.
See, the way it works, is you need to have a law, you need to have facts that the law was broken, and you need the jury to convict. If you are missing any of those, there can be no conviction. So a bad jury can't convict someone when there are no facts or no laws being broken.
That said, a bad jury can certainly exonerate someone since we have the double jeopardy rule in the constitution.
In the trial, you establish facts.
Tell that to the J6 prisoners.