The slacker superhero and reverse jury nullification

I SAID I would eventually do another hypothetical, didn’t I? No more polls, I am afraid; they are too hard to set up without working eyes, even using accessibility software.

Today’s story takes us back into the world of BOB X, the Black, bisexual superhero & former slacker with the powers of Superman, no known weaknesses, and a kid in college. But it is not Bob’s actions you are being asked to decide today. For purposes of this hypo, you are a juror in a murder trial for which Bob is the star witness.

Here’s the sitch. A few years back, Bob began spending time with the lovely Ashley Brown, a CNN reporter already famous in her own right. About a year ago, while Bob was occupied stopping a series of volcanic irruption’s in Iceland that, left unchecked, would have plunged the earth into a new Ice Age, Ashley disappeared. She had been kidnapped by some criminals who thought she knew the secret of Bob’s kryptonite and intended to torture it out of her. That was impossible, of course, as there was no such glowing green rock for Ashley to spill her guts about. But knowing that Bob’s current mission must not be interrupted, she refrain from calling for help for as long as she could. She was right to do this, as the volcanoes were the results of some ridiculous super-villain plot and the distraction of hearing her pleas for rescue might have been lethal for him and thus the Earth. But at last – as her guts were LITERALLY spilling — she did cry for him. But as he was in the middle of hefting an enormous MacGuffin into space, all he could do was listen as she died.

The most super human thing Bob did that week was refraining from dismembering Ashley’s murderers. This he did out of affection & memory of her, as she had already told him that she didn’t like killing. But, being neither a police officer nor a trained detective, he did cut some corners in tracking them down.

Which brings us to the day’s issue. Months have passed, and the criminals who murdered his lady friend are now on trial. You are one of the jurors, which is not sequestered. Listening to Bob’s testimony, it is pretty clear that he is not being allowed by the court to speak of everything he knows; clearly some evidence has been ruled in admissible, at least in your opinion as and inveterate fan of “Law & Order.” From what is allowed to be discussed in his testimony, you feel that the state has not met its burden of proof. But you trust Bob. He has never saved your life specifically, but he is by far the most famous man in the world, and his probity is beyond reproach. You are inclined to believe him if he says someone is guilty.

And that’s not all. Remember what I said about the jury not being sequestered. One day, during the trial but after court has been recessed, you catch a snippet of an interview with Bob about how things are going. He was clearly depressed during his testimony, and now he looks absolutely miserable. The reporter interviewing him inquires what he will do if the defendants are acquitted. Will he stand for it? Or just kill them himself, as nobody can stop him? Crying at that suggestion, Bob shakes his head. “Ashley hated killing, and I won’t dishonor her memory by doing that in her name,” he says. “But I am not sure if I will stay on this planet either. There are other worlds out there. I’ve learned how to go there. If the motherfuckers who killed Ashley go free because of some technicality, I am not sure whether I can bear to stay here any more. I am not saying I will leave Earth; I just don’t know.”

Bearing in mind Bob’s credibility regardless of what the rules of evidence say, his years of service to humanity The fact that, at last count, he has saved the entire earth from destruction at least twice and prevented the deaths of literally millions in smaller incidents, and the fact that no other hero even remotely approaches his power level (the second-most-powerful super is about as strong as Buffy the vampire slayer), would you be willing to overlook your qualms about the prosecution’s inadequate case?

That didn’t rhyme.

If we had “super beings” like that, who can literally save the planet dozens of times over, screwing with their emotional support structure should be a crime in itself.

Not Guilty. Sorry, but rule of law overcomes emotional issues suffered by a superhero.

I can’t quit you, Skald.

In a dramatic twist, I jump up in court and yell “Bob isn’t a police officer! Under the legal principle of Quid ego de me nescio as established by the famous case of Shodan’s Imagination v. Every Possible Consideration of the Rule of Law, Bob’s evidence cannot be excluded no matter what the corners he cut!

A stunned hush falls over the courtroom. The court reporter takes off her glasses and shakes her hair, revealing her to be a quirky but undeniably attractive beauty. She gazes at me longingly.

The bailiff moves in to arrest me, but, at a stern look and shake of the head from the judge, sits back down. The defendants snarl “It would have worked - if it weren’t for you meddling Dopers!” The jury convicts without leaving the box, Bob squeezes a nearby lump of coal into a diamond and presents it to me, I grab it, burn my hand on it because of the heat of its compression, and I am immediately besieged by lawyers who want me to sue Bob, and publishers offering me six figures for a book deal detailing the more salacious parts of my background. (I decline to sue, and upon research into my life the book deal is reduced to $25 in McDonald’s coupons and a T-shirt.)

The malefactors are immediately sent to the Prison Planet Xenon, where they are employed as slave labor to harvest the tampon trees every 28 days until they have learned their lesson, and, outside the courthouse, Bob reveals that he has received a coded message, sent by Ashley before she died, hinting that she has left instructions on how to recreate her as an exact clone, memories and all, except that she will have prehensile ear lobes, and that he (Bob) is setting off on a quest to find the instructions and if any volcanos crop up, to leave a message on his phone.

Roll credits.

Regards,
Shodan

So the real question is, do you vote to convict if you believe them to be guilty even if the evidence fails to prove it?

First a caveat, I don’t think I could vote to convict someone regardless of how I feel about their guilty or innocence or what the law proved or did not prove. Religiously, I don’t think I could judge someone. Leaving that aside and living in a hypothetical world, I would find a problem with convicting. The reason why is another hypothetical.

Instead of the ‘plaintiff’ as it were being Bob X a paragon of virtue and love, let’s pretend instead that it’s Boss Hogg, the owner of a mega-factory in Nowhere, Alabama in 1954 that employs 20 thousand workers. Let’s pretend that his daughter was killed and Boss Hogg rounded up 3 black kids that he is quite sure did it. Let’s pretend as well that Boss Hogg is not a villain, but a good, genuine person, but that the pain of knowing that these kids that he accused of murder running around free will cause him to move his factory to Mexico and automate the whole thing. I think that placing it in pre-Civil Rights Alabama and knowing that it’s black kids he wants to convict, even if he’s operating in good faith, it makes us question what suppositions went into his accusations and whether those suppositions are indeed truth or confirming a bias. I guess a utilitarian could say, “Well, it’s three potential innocents vs the good of everyone in town.” If you’re a pure utilitarian, maybe you ship them up a creek. As a guy with a more religious bent, I think that doing the morally correct thing as defined by my particular religious obligations outweighs the negative material consequences and my particular moral code would be to not punish the potentially innocent and hope that Boss Hogg eventually subscribes to a similar moral code, and if not, that’s not on me. Suffering for what is right is actually an expected outcome within my moral tradition and not suffering for doing right is a wonderful moment, but not a particularly common one.

Note also that reverse jury nullification is not legally a thing.

If a jury acquits a defendant, that acquittal is unreviewable. Nobody can overturn a not guilty verdict or set it aside unless there is evidence of jury tampering or some such.

However, guilty verdicts can be set aside if the judge believes that the jury got it completely wrong. If the jury hands down a guilty verdict, and the judge believes that would be impossible based on the evidence presented, the judge can override the verdict and declare a not guilty result. However, this not guilty result isn’t as hard as a not guilty by the original finder of fact, and could be overturned on appeal, unlike a normal not guilty verdict.

And of course, appeals courts overrule guilty verdicts all the time.

If the jury finds someone not guilty despite the evidence, there is no way to overrule that verdict or punish the jury. Hence jury nullification is a thing in our legal system because if it happens nothing can be done about it. But if the jury finds someone guilty despite the insufficiency of the evidence against them isn’t reverse jury nullification, because the jury’s improper verdict can be overruled by higher authorities.

Sorry, Bob, my verdict is Not Proven. (Hey, you didn’t specify an American court! :slight_smile: )

I could speak from my own experience in jury duty and somehow extrapolate from that.

In this trial, the defendant was accused of breaking into a house and stealing the occupants’ bicycle and boom box. Two officers testified. One didn’t keep good notes and stumbled over several of his answers. The other one was more prepared and displayed confidence in his testimony. So, he’ll be my Bob. Bob testified that he and the other officer saw the defendant riding the bicycle as they drove to the crime scene. He started to say he recognized the defendant, but his attorney objected. So, we knew the defendant had done something illegal before.

While we were on break, the defendant changed his plea to guilty. Turned out that was his 3rd strike and if convicted, he would have gotten 90 years.

Meantime, it was definitely proved that he was in possession of stolen goods, but not that he committed the actual theft. The defendant’s lawyer was court appointed, and normally worked his trade as a divorce lawyer, so he was new to criminal court. A more aggressive lawyer could probably have convinced us to drop the charge down to possession of stolen goods. I’m still not sure how I would have voted in the latter scenario. I was sure the defendant was guilty as sin, but we didn’t have certifiable proof. Unlikely as it is, somebody else could have stolen the bike, then gave it to him in the span of a few minutes.

I believed Bob was at least a competent policeman and was telling the truth. But, if instead of being an officer he was rather a self-appointed guardian of humanity, I probably would have resented him because he’s clearly above the limits of mere humans and can’t possibly be objective. Even if he did save the world countless times, all it takes is one bad moment and he can wreck everything. Humans have no means of countering Bob if he goes off the rails. It’d be like an ant hill being overrun by a massive army. Furthermore, what if Bob one day has a change of heart and decides to protect China or Russia instead of America? We’d for sure want a Lex Luthor.

So if I were to catch that snippet of Bob considering leaving Earth, I’d probably do what I could to hold up the decision process in hopes that Bob would fly to the other end of the galaxy out of impatience.

Skald, thank you for coming back, I missed these threads.:cool:

Don’t leave us hanging! This important question demands an answer. Do you still write the book?

As an officer of the court, the judge has a responsibility to keep things from the jury that might unduly prejudice them, and be likely to lead to an overly-high conviction probability. That’s the rules, as hammered out over hundreds of years of precedent.

As a jury member, *my *responsibility is simply and solely to come to a decision about whether I believe the defendant to be guilty. They can instruct me all they like, but if the net result of the trial is me being certain the person is actually guilty, then however that comes about, I’m going to vote guilty.

I won’t go out of my way to flout the rules, but Bob looking like he wants to say something but can’t is something that they allowed me to see, and my prior knowledge of Bob’s reputation is something that they know that I have. After that, my decision is up to me.

I don’t think the ‘but Bob will leave the planet’ possibility should factor in, though. Are they, or are they not, guilty is the only thing.

Know Out, I must point out that there is an obvious check on Bob’s actions: Bob himself. The very fact of the trial is evidence that Bob is committed to rule of law. It is happening because he captured the criminals and chose not to atomize them on the spot.

Your desire for Bob to leave earth also seems strange to me. After all, there are super villains here who, both in this thread and several earlier ones, endangered the planet, not to mention all the kaiju for which Bob is the only effective (or most effective) counter.

I am not sure whether I would vote to convict based on the scenario in the OP, but A desire to be rid of the one guy who can deflect giant meteor’s in a world regularly beset by giant meteors would not be my motivation if I were a juror.

Thank Cinderella the Rhymer.

Were I on a jury, I would view my loyalty as being to the Truth, not to the court per se. I view my job as delivering a verdict on whether the defendant actually did it, not on whether the prosecution successfully proved that he did it: That is to say, if the information I have leads to a sufficiently compelling case, then I will vote guilty, even if the prosecution never put together the argument that I am using.

That said, that depends on having the information. Even if I trust that Bob is a swell guy, well-intentioned and honest, that doesn’t mean that he’s infallable. He has reason to believe that these guys are guilty: OK, what’s that reason? Is it actually a sound one, or is it reasonable to believe that his conclusions might be faulty? If I don’t know, then I have reasonable doubt, and so I must vote Not Guilty.

It is, of course, unfortunate that this verdict might cause Bob to abandon Earth. But that’s not what I’m being asked to decide here. I’m deciding what I think is true, not what I think is convenient.

I guess the flaw in my reasoning is that I’m not envisioning myself living in a world of superheroes and titanic monsters. Sure, it would be cool to watch those battles from a safe distance, but I’ve had to recover from real life disasters enough to not prefer having to deal with the cleanup after they finish fighting.

Metropolis somehow always looks pristine and undamaged, but after a super battle, it would actually look like ISIS pillaged it during an earthquake. Collapsed buildings, ruined infrastructure, damaged power grid, numerous deaths and accidents, business and commercial collapse, followed by years of rebuilding, insurance claims, relocation, hospital stays… then Bob gets in a fight with another megapower and the shit storm starts over.

I sure as hell wouldn’t stay in Metropolis. I’d move to the most boring town on the map and hope they at least have wifi and running water.

You’ve made it clear in your hypothetical that Ashley really was captured and tortured by these people. As such, my duty as a juror is still to find them guilty, even if the law is messed up. The problem is whether or not I would be aware of how the law had messed things up

In this case, it seems I would be. This does appear to be an issue of a technicality, of a situation I dislike about our legal system. The “poison tree” doctrine should not invalidate everything. It just means that whoever didn’t do things the right way should be punished. It shouldn’t mean that justice isn’t served.

Since I am not sequestered, and Bob has superhearing and super speed, I should be able to find a place where I can be alone and set up a meeting with Bob where he can tell me what the law won’t let him. And, given what you’ve said, I think what he said would be enough information to find them guilty.

Ultimately, Bob’s statement about leaving Earth doesn’t even factor into it. This is good, because I don’t really think Bob would leave Earth otherwise! He gave himself an out about it, meaning he’d feel guilty if he’d leave, and he’s so good he won’t even lie about it. He’s gonna stick around.


If there’s no way for me to know they’re guilty, and I mishear what Bob says and think he definitely will leave, that makes for a harder conundrum. Given the stress, I likely chicken out and demand to be removed. If that doesn’t work, I keep the jury hung so that there can be another trial.

I am totally chaotic good, and if I believe the person is guilty, I’m voting guilty.

So I’m sitting there as a juror, totally confident that these guys did it but realising that the lawyers hadn’t actually made a perfect case of proving that fact?

Honestly, if I think that they are guilty then I am voting guilty. If I have reasonable doubt then I won’t find them guilty but that doesn’t seem to be the case here. I think they are guilty so thats what my vote would be. I’m not sure why it would be anything else?

It’s an interesting question: is the juror supposed to vote whether they believe the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or whether they believe the state has made a persuasive case that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

The latter sounds far too much like jurors are turned into professors grading essays.