• Lyudmila [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            In this (and most cases) there’s an ocean between the law as written and how it actually gets applied. This was a pretty cut and dry example of trafficking, even including situations where victims definitionally could not give consent and yet here we are.

            • VILenin [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              If, despite all the efforts of the DNC and the GOP, a good law (like a bill meant to protect vulnerable individuals) somehow manages to make it onto the books, it immediately gets effectively repealed through interpretation by the judiciary until it becomes a waste of ink on the code books.

              Add that the average jury is composed almost entirely of reactionary treatlerites who are easily swayed by the theatrics of highly-paid lawyers and this is what you get.

              This is how you get billionaire celebrities getting a verbal warning for their 27th DUI.

  • MarmiteLover123 [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I’m going to guess that the text message exchange between Diddy and Cassie Ventura, brought up as evidence by the defendants, killed the prosecution’s case for sex trafficking to the jury, given that the prostitution charges stuck and the sex trafficking ones did not. Diddy’s legal team released those messages (despite them being very embarrassing) to portray Ventura as a willing participant in the “freak offs”. Very sadly this worked.

  • prole [any, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    I didn’t really follow this, but if a jury said not guilty isn’t it at least somewhat reasonable to assume the evidence wasn’t that strong? Or I guess the prosecution could have intentionally made a weak case, but idk

    I figured he would go down hard as a scapegoat for the rest of the (white) people involved. Maybe Diddy had enough blackmail or something to wiggle out of it, but also I’m not quick to assume the jury got it wrong if they got to see evidence and hear testimony we didn’t. I typically just trust a jury more than the prosecution, cops, government in general, etc.

      • Frogmanfromlake [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        2 days ago

        They screen specifically for that. You need to be the type of person they perceive to not be on any side so if you show strong reactions to something you won’t make it. Fence sitters, or “centrists” are very much preferred.

        • VILenin [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          In a satanically fascist society screening for neutral individuals gives you the most satanically fascist treatlerites to ever walk the earth

    • LeylaLove [she/her, love/loves]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 days ago

      That’s what I’ve been hearing about the case. I haven’t followed the nitty gritty too closely, but know people who do. The general consensus I’ve gotten is that the prosecution came under prepared for as big of a case as they’re trying to make. I’m also assuming that they got less evidence than they would get out of court because individual evidence has to be stronger when you’re in court (at least if the defense lawyer is any good).

      Reminds me of Casey Anthony’s trial. Everybody was so pissed at that jury because it was so obvious that she did it, but if you see the case the prosecutors made against her it becomes very clear very quickly why she was found not guilty.

      In short, fuck cops

      • prole [any, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah, I get what you mean, I even said the prosecution could have brought a weak case. Both the defense and the prosecution teams choose jurors, so if the prosecutor was basically throwing the case then they would certainly try to choose a favorable jury. The court ultimately decides what the jury sees.

        I’m just not convinced the government would orchestrate a complex conspiracy to get Diddy on lesser charges instead of just like…not charging him at all in the first place? Allowing him to take a favorable plea deal? Idk there are a lot of ways they could have handled this that seem less complicated than fixing a jury trial.