Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Afterward, several jurors said that their vote was 11 to 1 in favor of acquitting the woman, Wilma Doré-Almonor, and that the case might have highlighted problems with the Police Departments stop-and-frisk policy.
Ms. Doré-Almonor was in an altercation with police officers at the 30th Precinct station house last year after she went to collect her son, 13 at the time, whom the police had stopped on the street and detained.
The son, Devin, was released without charge, but only after a fracas that led to the arrest of Ms. Doré-Almonor and her husband, Merault Almonor, who had spent 12 years as a police officer.
This case is morally repugnant to me, said Beth Flanders, a 57-year-old juror who works for the United Nations. She said she believed the police had abused their power and stopped Devin for no reason.
I was told that happens all the time, Ms. Flanders said of what she viewed as an improper stop-and-frisk. If that happens all the time in that neighborhood, in America, thats not good enough.
More proof of how stupid Americans are. You don't have a right to cause a riot at a police station just because you think your child was illegally detained. Even if it turns out s/he was illegally detained.
People are fucking retarded.
More proof of how stupid Americans are. You don't have a right to cause a riot at a police station just because you think your child was illegally detained. Even if it turns out s/he was illegally detained.
People are fucking retarded.
They didn't cause a riot. They did not hit anyone, and they were the ones that were calm. the police reacted like petty thugs when their authority was challenged,
With all due respect, QW, I don't see this as an example of jury nullification but, rather, as simply a case where the jury did not feel the evidence supported a conviction.
More proof of how stupid Americans are. You don't have a right to cause a riot at a police station just because you think your child was illegally detained. Even if it turns out s/he was illegally detained.
People are fucking retarded.
They didn't cause a riot. They did not hit anyone, and they were the ones that were calm. the police reacted like petty thugs when their authority was challenged,
yeah yeah I get it, anyone with a badge always bad, anyone who "stands up to them" always good.
“This case is morally repugnant to me,” said Beth Flanders, a 57-year-old juror who works for the United Nations. She said she believed the police had abused their power and stopped Devin for no reason.
“I was told that happens all the time,” Ms. Flanders said of what she viewed as an improper stop-and-frisk. “If that happens all the time in that neighborhood, in America, that’s not good enough.”
During deliberations, she said, she encouraged her fellow jurors to “look at the letter and the spirit of the law.”
With all due respect, QW, I don't see this as an example of jury nullification but, rather, as simply a case where the jury did not feel the evidence supported a conviction.
Matter of opinion.
I see it as the people standing up and saying that the laws that allow police to stop and frisk are wrong, and that police do not have the right to arrest people who disagree with them.
With all due respect, QW, I don't see this as an example of jury nullification but, rather, as simply a case where the jury did not feel the evidence supported a conviction.
Matter of opinion.
I see it as the people standing up and saying that the laws that allow police to stop and frisk are wrong, and that police do not have the right to arrest people who disagree with them.
Let me revisit this. On further review, it looks like the whole thing started because the cops rousted the child of the defendants and then, when the defendants went to the station to rescue their child, a fight broke out and the defendants ended up being charged with getting into it with the cops. That about it?
And it further looks like the jury hung up 11 to 1 for NG largely because it all started due to the police roust of the child. If that's what happened, then yes - it looks like jury nullification. On the other hand, if the jury voted as it did because they didn't feel that the evidence was sufficient, then that would not look like jury nullification.
I'm wondering what the judge was doing letting in evidence of the initial roust of the kid. Doesn't seem all that relevant to me.
