Lots of comment on here over the past 24 hours about Benjamin Mendy.
Two helpful observations:
1. If you didn’t hear the evidence at trial, your hot take on the jury’s verdicts is worthless.
2. There is to be a retrial, so contempt laws still apply to those hot takes.
Two helpful observations:
1. If you didn’t hear the evidence at trial, your hot take on the jury’s verdicts is worthless.
2. There is to be a retrial, so contempt laws still apply to those hot takes.
As a general observation, a “not guilty” verdict tells us nothing more than the fact that the jury were not sure of guilt.
It doesn’t equate to a positive finding of innocence.
It doesn’t automatically mean that a complainant was lying.
It just means “not guilty.”
It doesn’t equate to a positive finding of innocence.
It doesn’t automatically mean that a complainant was lying.
It just means “not guilty.”
The common misconceptions about what conclusions we can actually draw from jury verdicts are something I address in #FakeLaw.
Until we start requiring juries to give reasons for their verdicts (something I support), we will never know why and how they reach their decisions.
Until we start requiring juries to give reasons for their verdicts (something I support), we will never know why and how they reach their decisions.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
