That's what jury instructions are for. The judge can instruct the jury to ignore pretty much any facts and consider any subset of what really happened that they want. So they'd just instruct "did they access the system? Were they authorized? If the answer to the first question is yes, and to the second is no, the verdict is guilty, ignore all the rest". The jury won't be from the HN crowd, it would be random people who don't know anything about CFAA or computer systems, it will be the easiest thing in the world to convict. Those guys got so lucky DHS exhibited unusually sensible behavior, they could have ruined their lives.
I once got called into jury duty and sat through jury selection. On that day, protesters were outside the courthouse calling awareness to jury nullification, so the judge brought it up. He said something like: "jury nullification is a constitutional right, but you waive those rights when you take the oath of a juror. It is not an option to you." I really wanted to say "but that constitutional right is not my right, it's the defendant's right. How can I waive the defendant's constitutional right to a trial where jury nullification is a possible outcome?" However, it was a rape trial, where nullification would be an awful outcome (basically saying: yeah, he raped her, but that shouldn't be illegal in this case ... yuck), so I kept my mouth shut. But it still bothers me that the judge was so glib about "waiving" the constitutional rights of the defendant.
> But it still bothers me that the judge was so glib about "waiving" the constitutional rights of the defendant.
Around here, people are clamoring for a judge to be recalled because she is on top of rights for defendants. A recent one I watched on Zoom was a prosecution motion to revoke bail:
Prosecutor: "Because blah blah blah, and in addition the defendant shows no signs of taking responsibility for his actions, we..."
Judge, cutting her off: "I'm going to stop you there. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and as of this moment has not been found guilty at trial. In the eyes of the court, he has precisely zero obligation to take responsibility for alleged actions at this point in time."
People want that judge to be recalled? So not only are people opposed to trial by jury, they also want the judge to be biased towards the prosecution? Why? Just the usual "tough on crime" dogwhistles?
Mostly so. They're the same ones who comment on posts about fires at homeless encampments as "Good" or "Too bad it didn't wipe the place out" and sycophantic "Thank you Sheriff" when the department posts about an arrest.
Which countries make Jury Nullification a constitutional right for defendants? I looked at the wikipedia article (US section), and it only refers to it as power possessed by a jury.
If a defendant has the constitutional right to trial by a jury, and that jury has autonomy to make an independent decision, then jury nullification is a possible outcome.
If jury nullification is not a possible outcome, then either the defendant doesn't have a right to trial by jury, or that jury is not allowed to make an independent decision.
Defendants don't have a direct constitutional right to jury nullification (the Constitution doesn't say anything about nullification). It's just a logical consequence: if the jury really can make independent decisions, then nullification is necessarily one of those possible decisions.
I don't know your case, but the term "rape" has been legally expanded a lot from what we might imagine when we hear the word "rape" (forceful sexual act).
Legally it can mean a case where a man met a women in a bar, she was not drunk and wanted to go home with him. She explicitly consented. Later it ends up that she was using a fake ID to get into the bar, she was only 17.9 years old in a state where the age of consent is 18. Or alternatively, the guy recently moved a block over. In his old location the age of consent was less than 18, but now he moved and he committed rape (aka, the opinion that got Richard Stallman to step down).
YMMV but I don't think in my state either of those things would be tried as just "rape".
If there's no force/threats/drugs etc involved and the minor consents, it's charged as statutory rape which is different than capital-R rape.
Statutory rape can be a felony, but in cases like an 18 year old and a 17.5 year old having sex it's a misdemeanor and realistically 99.999% of the time it happens there are no charges
I had a very similar situation when I was called. The trial subject was systematic elder abuse and neglect by a person in a position of power at a hospital. I was very glad to not be chosen. I would not have nullified and I did not want to spend weeks hearing about how this woman basically tortured helpless people.
I told a prosecutor during voir dire that I wouldn’t follow a judge’s instruction if it was a case involving drugs (I think it was a shoplifting case, so not relevant to the particular case). That was enough to be excused by the prosecutor.
Everyone says this but when people say "critical thinking skills" it really means "is obvious they will willfully disobey the instructions given to them by the judge and hold their own moral/ethical code above the law."
You're literally describing jury nullification in a situation where by the hypothetical judge's instructions they're obviously guilty. I might agree with you that the law is bullshit but by right you and I should be dismissed.
> hold their own moral/ethical code above the law ... I might agree with you that the law is bullshit
This is the entire reason that we have trial by jury and not trial by judge. I'm not sure how this got lost over the centuries. If 12 of your peers think you did it but the law is bullshit and you shouldn't have your life destroyed because of some stupid technicality in a bullshit law, then you should walk free! I'm aware this has been used to horrible ends in the past (e.g. 12 white jurors nullifying a lynching) but that's a problem with jury selection (and those so-called peers), not with nullification.
> You're literally describing jury nullification in a situation where by the hypothetical judge's instructions they're obviously guilty
Yes, that is the only time nullification is relevant. If a judge can lead the jury to one verdict or another via his instructions, then it's not a trial by jury at all. It's a trial by judge. The founders understood that -- they didn't want a trial by judge. The jury is a check on the judge's power!
Jury is peer, not subordinate of judge, and they should keep each other in check. Some tyrannical judges don't understand this. Sometimes the judge has to be reminded he is wrong in a way he can't prove he's been reminded, however.
> That's what jury instructions are for. The judge can instruct the jury to ignore pretty much any facts and consider any subset of what really happened that they want. So they'd just instruct "did they access the system? Were they authorized? If the answer to the first question is yes, and to the second is no, the verdict is guilty, ignore all the rest".
The only real protection is the fact that you can vote whatever way you want and not even a judge can compel you to state your reasoning.
