Or, that same jury can "acquit" him. Did you ever see the Paul Newman movie, '
The Verdict?" Granted that was a civil matter and Newman's client is the "plaintiff," but... The jury has one huge tool over which the judiciary has very little control, if any... "Jury Nullification." I, personally saw this in action when serving as a juror myself. Long story short, a biker gang got into a brawl and the complaint was that a "prodigal son" in that biker gang that was just visiting got into a one-on-one with a resident member, resulting in that member being cut very badly with a box cutter blade. The "prodigal son" defendant was arrested and charged with 6 different assault and weapons charges. They had all kinds of evidence (investigators found the blade in the grass, the blood on the clothing, the blood on the defendant's person, etc. etc.
Still, We, the jury acquitted him of all the original felony charges, but convicted only one one simple "misdemeanor" charge (that was added to the indictment after the trial had started - they knew they were in trouble). That charge was "simple assault," with the stipulation that there was "mutual consent" between them to start the brawl, reducing the penalty to the classic 30 days in jail. He had, probably, already served it pre-trial. The problem being, The prosecutor was totally incapable of "connecting the dots." He put out a whole ton of evidence and expected us, via "reverse jury nullification" to connect the evidence and reach guilty verdicts. Unh-Uh. Yes, a blade was found at the scene, and yes, it had the defendant's blood on it (the defense even stipulated to that). But did it have the defendant's "fingerprints" on it? Was the "victim's" blood on it? It was found in the grass around the brawl site. But did anyone witness the defendant actually possess the weapon, or draw it from their person? No such testimony. Did the two brawlers go into the brawl "clean" (no injuries) and stay "isolated" for the whole duration of the brawl, with both coming out injured? Apparently not, and they even flew in a witness to testify as to what happened in the brawl. He confirmed that several members attempted to intervene in the brawl. They were never totally isolated.
Hence, dots not connected, and the defendant was acquitted of all the felony charges. Only the one small "simple assault" charge where we determined there was "mutual consent."
Point being, the right jury can see through all the BS and make the right call. Just like they did in NYC with Daniel Penny. Whodathunk that one?
