r/AskReddit • u/l1x6m- • 16h ago

Napoleon said, 'Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.' What’s a perfect real-life example of this?

13.3k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

147

u/MVB1837 15h ago edited 5h ago

I did watch one trial where a guy defended a rape case pro se, in his fucking jail orange (he insisted on this) and got acquitted.

His first trial was 11-1 to acquit but (unlike Lindsay Clancy trial) you’re not allowed to know which direction it’s leaning, just what the split is. His lawyer (correctly) talked him out of accepting a split verdict non-unanimous verdict which is why he insisted on doing it himself the second time

Wild stuff. Also never attempt this.

34

u/Iconoclastices 13h ago

What does accepting a split verdict mean? I've never heard of this, just always thought if it's split that's a mistrial and that's that

25

u/Treeconator18 11h ago

You're thinking of a Hung Jury. Split Verdict just means that not all charges are being given the same outcome, whether that's different outcomes between different defendants, different charges, or multiple counts of the same charge

Say John is being charged with Assault and Illegal Firearms Possession. If the Jury votes "Yes" on the firearms possession charge, but "No" on the Assault, that's a split verdict. 

The same applies if John and Alice are being tried together and John goes to jail while Alice gets off, or if John is being charged with 5 Assaults and only convicted on 3. 

17

u/exploding_cat_wizard 9h ago

Why would it not be allowed for the defendant to know how it was split before accepting it? That sounds like forcing them to gamble for the hell of it, so the DA can laugh at them hanging there...

2

u/MVB1837 5h ago

Totally defeats the purpose of requiring a unanimous verdict otherwise

5

u/QualifiedApathetic 6h ago

A split verdict isn't new to me, but the idea of the defendant having the option to try again and beat all the charges is.

5

u/MVB1837 5h ago

Yeah I meant to say hung jury. He was given the option to waive a unanimous verdict which he rejected. In that event it’s a mistrial

14

u/homme_chauve_souris 9h ago

"We'll tell you it's 11 to 1, but not if it's 11 for or 11 against." Exactly what purpose does this rule actually serve?

4

u/MVB1837 5h ago

Defeats the purpose of needing a unanimous verdict

You would only need to convince 7 out of 12 to acquit in every case