I said the Clancy trial was jury nullification. The jurors now admit it was.

Categories: Gaming the Courts

8 Comments

Wilson · September 14, 2026 at 7:19 pm

If you talk about jury nulafaction , they normally kick you off the jury

Jester · September 14, 2026 at 8:40 pm

Sickening, but hardly new. Introduce emotions and agendas and justice is denied.

Big Ruckus D · September 15, 2026 at 12:01 am

Ah, and the Lone Juror™ nullified their nullification. Nicely done. Us dissident types like to discuss jury nullification as a force for good, and I fully agree with the concept. But we need to remain aware of the fact that the opposition will co-opt the same tactic for dishonorable reasons. And you can bet your ass this will be happening a lot more, now that the concept is receiving mainstream discussion.

    Divemedic · September 15, 2026 at 4:38 am

    Woke juries?
    As the system begins to fail, the cracks will become wider.

Tom762 · September 15, 2026 at 3:25 pm

Jury nullification is for bad law, RICO, asset forfeiture, most gun law, etc. It is not to legalize the murder of children. They were not nullifing, they were being bitches. They deserve to be brought up on jury tampering charges for what they have done to the hold out!

Tom762

    JimmaJoe · September 15, 2026 at 7:09 pm

    Good explanation!

      Divemedic · September 16, 2026 at 5:26 am

      Ah, but the jury gets to decide what a bad law is. When jury nullification is taking place, some decisions are going to be unpopular with a segment of the population. So yes, good laws will occasionally be nullified right along with the bad ones, and juries will let murderers walk occassionally.

Landroll · September 16, 2026 at 4:23 pm

Not a lawyer here but I don’t regard this as jury nullification. Had all twelve decided her innocent then that title would apply because she could not be tried again for the murders. Still a travesty. Hand salutr to the lone juror and a fickle finger to the other eleven.

Comments are closed.