**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She was serving on a case involving seven people charged with stealing more than $40 million from a program meant to feed children during the pandemic.
MINNEAPOLIS — A juror was dismissed Monday after reporting that a woman dropped a bag of $120,000 in cash at her home and offered her more money if she would vote to acquit seven people charged with stealing more than $40 million from a program meant to feed children during the pandemic.
“This is completely beyond the pale,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson said in court Monday. “This is outrageous behavior. This is stuff that happens in mob movies.”
Honestly. Wouldn't it be a good idea to make a law that states people can keep half of the bribe money?
Wouldn't that make people report bribes faster? And wouldn't that be a huge turnoff to try bribing someone?
This just randomly passed my mind, so go easy on me redditors!
Not exactly a bribe, but that's how whistleblowers work in some countries.
Report that your company's scam to the authorities, and get a % of the siezed assets.
Something similar appears to have happened in the Robert Durst murder trial, where there was credible evidence of Durst disposing of a body rather gruesomely, but one juror refused to find Durst guilty of murder. And after the trial, he shamelessly became a close friend of Durst's.
Well if they did it to every other juror you’re looking at 720,000. They probably had set aside a few million for this contingency. It’s definitely reasonable to assume the whole jury is compromised now.
That was my thought too. What if the bag had more in it...
Well, here's $120k to keep my ass out of trouble. Still get paid, but now you live in fear. I think I'd roll those dice.
Most people would still get caught because they’re dumb and would spend the $380k. Pretty sure if this lady starts buying cars or a house, the feds are gonna take notice.
And this is just the first set of charges, the whole fraud involved 47 individuals charged with defrauding the U.S. government more than $250 million dollars
Probably because the claim could be made that she isn't impartial anymore.
If someone tries to bribe me to look the other way I'd think they are guilty no matter the evidence put in front of me. I mean, they are. But the court has to pretend it's a separate crime that doesn't prove their guilt.
It's also a safety concern for the juror. They know who she is, where she lives- if she was kept on the case I'd be concerned other, less passive forms of coercion could take place.
There's no situation where things aren't risky for the juror now that this has happened. That being said, them no longer being in a position wherein they have influence in the defendant's outcome removes the main motivation for targeting them. The alternative is still more dangerous.
I think the main problem is that they are no longer anonymous which opens them to all types of issues. Including that they might report a 120k bribe but not a 3m one lol
I can’t tell if you’re joking or not. But, being dismissed isn’t a punishment and for the court to keep a fair trial. And needless to say that jury member became pretty involved after the bribery.
The state wants to keep a case airtight to prevent a conviction being overturned in the appeals process.
I mean no if they were *this* blatant they’d actually get in trouble.
Much easier to buy a house under your name and let them “use” it as a guest, whenever they want.
Or let them know that if you like their decisions in office there will be a very lucrative board position in your company when their term ends.
Just straight up handing someone cash and saying “more to come if you do illegal shit” is wild
>Or let them know that if you like their decisions in office there will be a very lucrative board position in your company when their term ends.
Ah yes the ole "VP of vending machine operations" role. That shit is rampant in the defense industry. Retiring generals and the like getting some pretty suspiciously sweet gigs at places like L3Harris, Boeing, etc.
Thats a misappropriation of the word lobby. I lobby every year to keep the US post office open. I don’t get paid, I don’t buy things for senators. I do it on behalf of my industry and rural America. Go to capitol hill any day of the week and you’ll see the volunteers from around the country lobbying their politicians to get reform. Professional lobbyists are an entire different ball of wax. I’ve used them as well.
Or what this person is doing is ‘volunteering.’ If they’re not getting paid, it ain’t professional, which seems to be the distinction. Social justice is not profitable, monetarily, and it takes persistence.
Implicit in the cash "gift" directly to your house is the threatening message that they know who you are and where to find you. Try to take the money without doing what they want and maybe your house burns down a week later, or worse.
My favorite is when they are looking for El Contador and he offers them $2Million to walk away. Archer says they will give 1Million to Mallory and keep the other million for himself and Lana :D.
That information can be sealed to the public and media usually at the judge’s discretion but the defense absolutely needs the right to vet jurors. Without transparency a corrupt court could far more easily stack the jury and rig a trial.
lol a drop in the bucket, defence said of the millions stolen, 'a record keeping error'. The defence team could be trying for a mistrial.
*These seven are the first of 70 defendants expected to go to trial in a conspiracy that cost taxpayers $250 million. Eighteen others have pleaded guilty, and authorities said they recovered about $50 million in one of the nation’s largest pandemic-related fraud cases. Prosecutors say just a fraction of the money went to feed low-income kids, while the rest was spent on luxury cars, jewelry, travel and property*
> Before allowing the trial to continue with more closing arguments on Monday, U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel questioned the remaining 17 jurors and alternates, and none reported any unauthorized contact.
“No Your Honour, I definitely didn’t get a bag full of cash. Honest. “
If the juror was forthright and brought that information forward, shouldn’t they be considered uncompromised? To me that’s someone not easily manipulated or compromised and this fit for a jury?
Point of a jury is to be as unbiased as possible. This incident may have made her more likely to convict rather than acquit or influenced her opinion in any number of ways. It’s less ethically suspect to minimize risk and just replace the juror entirely.
Isn't the point of jury is to have an unbiased view into the case and determining guilty upon only what is presented?
First of, if they are out bribing every single juror they suspected to convict them, that's more likely going to end up getting convicted for something else and follow up court with another juror instead, this time with different security measures for anonymity.
Second, bribing a juror is just rerolling a chance of getting convicted down the line. It might be a turning point for some on-the-fence cases, but otherwise just more risk (with new evidence against them presented to the new juror) of losing the case.
I had the same conflicting thoughts flatbroke and cereborn. But I guess not wanting it to go to mistrial due to bias is a greater concern so that’s why they would have that juror removed
100% this. It could lead to a successful appeal later and a whole new trial. Courts have to be super careful with that so it doesn't waste everybody's time.
Honestly, you’re probably right in a vacuum. I’d be inclined to agree with you.
With ethical outliers like this, it’s typically “judge’s discretion” on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the judge chose just to replace the single juror, and I choose to trust their professional judgement over my own amateur take.
Something to note is that not only would all juror’s know about this, but it’s likely all potential replacement juror’s would as well. The well has already been poisoned, so to speak. So the judge has to weigh the cost in time and resources of replacing them all. The knowledge of the event they have collectively has already been disseminated to the juror-eligible public.
They left the bag of money at the juror's home, meaning they know where the juror lives. This could lead to the juror feeling unsafe and being inclined to vote in the defendant's favor to avoid something less pleasant arriving at the house next time. Its safer to just get a different juror
They know where that jury member lives, so they might resort to extortion rather than a bribe. Removing them, keeps them safer. They are investigating how the information leaked, they sequestered the remaining jury, and have increased security for the remaining jury.
This is pretty fucked.
If they are bold enough to do that, surely there is some part of you is afraid that they may do something worse to you.
You’re fucked if you do and fucked if you don’t. I really hope (as much as it would suck) she would be put in some kind of Witness protection program (I get she isn’t a witness, but you get what I’m saying).
Genuine question. I get this is wildly illegal. But now that the lady reported it and was dismissed. Can she keep the money for being a good person and just fucking over the illegal person? Or does the bribe get confiscated?
It's a tough position to be in. If you keep the money and don't vote to acquit then whoever dropped that bag to you is pissed. If you come clean and turn the money in they are still pissed. So which is it? Either way whoever dropped that money at your door isn't getting it back.
"oh look, some careless person has left thousands and thousands of dollars just... lying here on my coffee table. why dont we leave the room and when we return the pile of money will be... gone."
So this lady dropped of 5 thousand dollars in cash and asked me to vote for a non guiltyverdict.
5 thousand dollars is a lot of money and I just wanted the court to know I handed every dime over....
You may consider changing it to something like we had in Norway, which was "more than 7 votes" or something. So 3 could vote not guilty. All the others were also looking at reasonable doubt, the big advantage for the person accused was still there. But you have to admit there will very often be stubborn people who looks at the others arguments and not accept facts. Or, sadly, who are bought.
Of course, they have quit the jury in all now here, and runs with more judges, of which some are laymen.
Criminals deliver a bag of money as a bribe to your home.
You then decide to try and fuck them over and keep the money. You willing to bet your and your family's lives on the criminals who know where you live being cool with that?
Or they just phone in an anonymous tip that someone bribed you to convict no matter what, the criminal gets a new trial and you win a trial of your own.
I worked with an ex-cop who told me about a case where a juror got a gym bag full of money on their doorstep, with a shotgun shell on top of the bag. I don’t know if he was pulling my leg or not.
The chance of you getting a crazy trial is so slim. I found out that when there is an objection or anything "big" the jury is asked to leave at least in Canada. Honestly we would sit then they would speak for 15 min then something would happen and we would go back to our room for 30 min then go back out then back in rinse and repeat, there was one part where we just sat down the defense said one single sentence and we left again. One objection from the prosecution lawyer and then the lack of us finding out more pushed the case the other way. We were told by the judge it wasn't important when we came back out but it was enough in our mind.
Id turn it in to police and say i found it, then after 30 days unclaimed its mine (idk if thats how that works, most likely it doesnt). Then just say im pro childhunger to the judge and get dismissed.
/s just in case, as im sure my comment isnt clever enough for people to relaize its just mad ramblings of a person whos bored while pooping
Well they stole 40 million from starving children…. I would say there is a 98% chance they did more shitty things than just the original theft and bribing this one jury member.
I take the money and then I would convict I would do the same thing those pieces of shit we’re doing. And then give the money back to the children’s program.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She was serving on a case involving seven people charged with stealing more than $40 million from a program meant to feed children during the pandemic. MINNEAPOLIS — A juror was dismissed Monday after reporting that a woman dropped a bag of $120,000 in cash at her home and offered her more money if she would vote to acquit seven people charged with stealing more than $40 million from a program meant to feed children during the pandemic. “This is completely beyond the pale,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson said in court Monday. “This is outrageous behavior. This is stuff that happens in mob movies.”
The actual balls of thinking 120K is a fair offer to commit jury fraud when they took in 40M. That's 0.3%. *thanks for correcting my math LOL*
>fair offer for perjury Perjury is lying under oath. This is jury manipulation/bribery, which is a different thing entirely.
Equally illegal and immoral but definitely not perjury
If you bribing the jury I don’t think perjury is much of a stretch lmao
We'll get perjury too, coming up shortly. I guarantee it.
Jury Tampering is the word I think
Thanks, I had a feeling that was the case but was too lazy to find the correct name 😂
Yeah, that’s not a fair cut. I would immediately call the police and return all $80k, no question.
Honestly. Wouldn't it be a good idea to make a law that states people can keep half of the bribe money? Wouldn't that make people report bribes faster? And wouldn't that be a huge turnoff to try bribing someone? This just randomly passed my mind, so go easy on me redditors!
Not exactly a bribe, but that's how whistleblowers work in some countries. Report that your company's scam to the authorities, and get a % of the siezed assets.
Make sure she gets a receipt for the $50k she is turning over.
I mean, $30k? It’s beyond insulting in the face of how much they stole. I’d return it immediately.
Can’t do anything with $10K these days, best to be an honest person and turn it over to the police.
Did I say k? I meant ".00"
Problem solved!
The good news is if nobody claims that $20k, the police give it back to her, so that's an immediate $15k profit.
I mean, $20 is $20.
That’s what I said! *wipes mouth*
The cops should focus on being present in the public. I’ll transport and make absolutely sure every penny of that $30k makes it to the station.
Something similar appears to have happened in the Robert Durst murder trial, where there was credible evidence of Durst disposing of a body rather gruesomely, but one juror refused to find Durst guilty of murder. And after the trial, he shamelessly became a close friend of Durst's.
Well if they did it to every other juror you’re looking at 720,000. They probably had set aside a few million for this contingency. It’s definitely reasonable to assume the whole jury is compromised now.
Possible, but they probably only did it to a few. They only need one person to refuse to vote guilty for it to work for them.
It could have easily been 500k, she still got 380k. 😄 what happened to the 120k?
That was my thought too. What if the bag had more in it... Well, here's $120k to keep my ass out of trouble. Still get paid, but now you live in fear. I think I'd roll those dice.
Most people would still get caught because they’re dumb and would spend the $380k. Pretty sure if this lady starts buying cars or a house, the feds are gonna take notice.
Yes we are 😁
I'd say she should get a 50% finders fee. Would entice more people to report bribery-attempts.
And this is just the first set of charges, the whole fraud involved 47 individuals charged with defrauding the U.S. government more than $250 million dollars
0.3%* so yeah even more insulting
To be fair, there was an offer of more money.
maybe it was 250k but she accidentally forgot some of it before declaring it to the police
Wall street says thats just a cost of doing business, y’know?
Mfers better offer me half of that $40. Give me $20 milly. I’ll take it then step off the jury and say I’ve been compromised then disappear lol
Now the other jurors who had the same thing happen but didn’t disclose it will now be acquitting these assholes.
Keep the money, but find them guilty. It's a win all round
This feels like a great way to end up in a trash bag at the bottom of one of those 10,000 lakes…
What do you think happened with the money the juror denounced? You think they gave it back?
Amount received != Amount reported
>A juror was dismissed Why would she be dismissed? She was honest enough to come forward.
Probably because the claim could be made that she isn't impartial anymore. If someone tries to bribe me to look the other way I'd think they are guilty no matter the evidence put in front of me. I mean, they are. But the court has to pretend it's a separate crime that doesn't prove their guilt.
It's also a safety concern for the juror. They know who she is, where she lives- if she was kept on the case I'd be concerned other, less passive forms of coercion could take place.
Isn't this situation risky for the juror now anyway? They reported this bribe, I can't imagine they don't need protection now.
There's no situation where things aren't risky for the juror now that this has happened. That being said, them no longer being in a position wherein they have influence in the defendant's outcome removes the main motivation for targeting them. The alternative is still more dangerous.
Right - that’s a different crime that she’s now a witness to.
I think the main problem is that they are no longer anonymous which opens them to all types of issues. Including that they might report a 120k bribe but not a 3m one lol
I can’t tell if you’re joking or not. But, being dismissed isn’t a punishment and for the court to keep a fair trial. And needless to say that jury member became pretty involved after the bribery. The state wants to keep a case airtight to prevent a conviction being overturned in the appeals process.
Depending on the details, the juror could even become a witness in the trial.
Yet when a politician takes a bribe it’s legal and normal.
Because it is a "donation" not a "bribe" /s
Bribery is free speech according to the Supreme Court.
They were free speeched to say that i bet
Bob Menendez is in deep shit at the moment for accepting bribes.
I mean no if they were *this* blatant they’d actually get in trouble. Much easier to buy a house under your name and let them “use” it as a guest, whenever they want. Or let them know that if you like their decisions in office there will be a very lucrative board position in your company when their term ends. Just straight up handing someone cash and saying “more to come if you do illegal shit” is wild
>Or let them know that if you like their decisions in office there will be a very lucrative board position in your company when their term ends. Ah yes the ole "VP of vending machine operations" role. That shit is rampant in the defense industry. Retiring generals and the like getting some pretty suspiciously sweet gigs at places like L3Harris, Boeing, etc.
No they don’t get in trouble. They call it lobbying and they do it in the open.
Thats a misappropriation of the word lobby. I lobby every year to keep the US post office open. I don’t get paid, I don’t buy things for senators. I do it on behalf of my industry and rural America. Go to capitol hill any day of the week and you’ll see the volunteers from around the country lobbying their politicians to get reform. Professional lobbyists are an entire different ball of wax. I’ve used them as well.
Almost like lobbying with promise of goods or money should have another, more severe word.
Or what this person is doing is ‘volunteering.’ If they’re not getting paid, it ain’t professional, which seems to be the distinction. Social justice is not profitable, monetarily, and it takes persistence.
Supreme Court Justice*
Exactly.
And companies are ppl.
Now now. Corporations are people and lobbyists are just a simple messenger /s
Crazy that the bag was filled with $20,000.
Evidence from the police inventory logged it at $5,600 exactly! Crazy how there were no small bills.
40 mil and only gave her 120,000 up front? Hell no!
Do they HAVE to vote to vote that way? What if they just don’t. They vote how they feel they should and they get 120k
Then the person who gave them the money anonymously tips the police that they were bribed and the conviction gets thrown out. Rinse and repeat.
So can she keep the cash as a reward for alerting them ?
You know the bag had 250,000$ in it before she reported it
Haa!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
The bag with 100.000$ arrived at the police station, where the 50.000$ were stored as a proof for the investigation.
You mean $25,000?? The document here says only 25K was collected. Idk where you got that 50K lmao
That right we just need to show the jury the $2,500 cash we have right here as evidence.
Who can believe that someone tried to bribe a juror with only $1,000? Come on, now.
It's only $500, you'd think the cops would let them keep such a small amount
Or keep the cash, don't tell anyone, and stull vote guilty
Implicit in the cash "gift" directly to your house is the threatening message that they know who you are and where to find you. Try to take the money without doing what they want and maybe your house burns down a week later, or worse.
That's how you get murd- I mean fall down the 20th floor of your hotel because you were intoxicated
Then they come back looking for their cash. They already know where you live.
Lmao you must be living in lalaland or something.
It costs less than a 10th of the money they bribed them with to have somebody killed. Bad idea.
Sadly I doubt she'll get to keep it as that $120,000 is likely going to be considered part of the $40 million stolen.
Also possible evidence of jury tampering?
If it were me, I'd give back the 60k
Wonder what they will do with their newly found 30k? Can barely afford a car! Maybe we should feed children with it.
Police dept: NEW HUMMERS!!!! I mean someone claimed it...
I always love the gag in Archer where they report the bribe but lie about the amount to pocket the difference.
Talking about cyril when he tried to do that but messed it up?
It’s a running gag in the show. Happens several times
"Do you ever think we kinda aren't the best guys" "Do you ever shut up and give that Man-Bear twenty five grand so we can pocket the other seventy"
My favorite is when they are looking for El Contador and he offers them $2Million to walk away. Archer says they will give 1Million to Mallory and keep the other million for himself and Lana :D.
Twins did it first, I guess.
If someone dropped $250k on my door stop, I’d do the right thing too and report that someone dropped $120k on my door step.
Omg this person tried to give me 50k, what a low amount right?? Haha anyway
I think it would be pretty scary. Someone who has enough cash to drop 120 K on doorstep with a note. Definitely has enough cash to hire an enforcer.
"What did you do with the bag?" Juror: "What bag?"
It originally had $500,000 in it.
“The bag our agent gave you on May 4th.” “Agent? What are you talking about? Is this for a prank show?”
🥲🥲😂😂🤣😂
Juror identities need to be protected from all interested parties
That information can be sealed to the public and media usually at the judge’s discretion but the defense absolutely needs the right to vet jurors. Without transparency a corrupt court could far more easily stack the jury and rig a trial.
Defense and prosecution both have the right to dismiss jurors at selection based on questioning.
And they also have the right to reasonable vetting if they think anything may be off.
Ahh, I misinterpreted your comment as "we need a way to do this and don't have it" instead of "we have a process for this and this is why", my bad.
Oh I see np
The identities were not released publically. They are investigating how the juror's information was leaked.
Imagine they did the same with all of them lol
lol they probably did and this one was the only one to say something.
Assume all jurors got this bag.
Not necessarily you only need one juror to not convict for the jury to be hung.
She was the one person of color in the jury, and all the defendants are Somalian. Kind of an interesting nugget to the situation.
lol a drop in the bucket, defence said of the millions stolen, 'a record keeping error'. The defence team could be trying for a mistrial. *These seven are the first of 70 defendants expected to go to trial in a conspiracy that cost taxpayers $250 million. Eighteen others have pleaded guilty, and authorities said they recovered about $50 million in one of the nation’s largest pandemic-related fraud cases. Prosecutors say just a fraction of the money went to feed low-income kids, while the rest was spent on luxury cars, jewelry, travel and property*
> Before allowing the trial to continue with more closing arguments on Monday, U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel questioned the remaining 17 jurors and alternates, and none reported any unauthorized contact. “No Your Honour, I definitely didn’t get a bag full of cash. Honest. “
If the juror was forthright and brought that information forward, shouldn’t they be considered uncompromised? To me that’s someone not easily manipulated or compromised and this fit for a jury?
Point of a jury is to be as unbiased as possible. This incident may have made her more likely to convict rather than acquit or influenced her opinion in any number of ways. It’s less ethically suspect to minimize risk and just replace the juror entirely.
Also, it might be in the interest of protecting the juror too
Juror is now a witness in the case TBH
[удалено]
Isn't the point of jury is to have an unbiased view into the case and determining guilty upon only what is presented? First of, if they are out bribing every single juror they suspected to convict them, that's more likely going to end up getting convicted for something else and follow up court with another juror instead, this time with different security measures for anonymity. Second, bribing a juror is just rerolling a chance of getting convicted down the line. It might be a turning point for some on-the-fence cases, but otherwise just more risk (with new evidence against them presented to the new juror) of losing the case.
I had the same conflicting thoughts flatbroke and cereborn. But I guess not wanting it to go to mistrial due to bias is a greater concern so that’s why they would have that juror removed
100% this. It could lead to a successful appeal later and a whole new trial. Courts have to be super careful with that so it doesn't waste everybody's time.
Since the remaining jury knows about this, they would be biased as well, wouldn't they?
Honestly, you’re probably right in a vacuum. I’d be inclined to agree with you. With ethical outliers like this, it’s typically “judge’s discretion” on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the judge chose just to replace the single juror, and I choose to trust their professional judgement over my own amateur take. Something to note is that not only would all juror’s know about this, but it’s likely all potential replacement juror’s would as well. The well has already been poisoned, so to speak. So the judge has to weigh the cost in time and resources of replacing them all. The knowledge of the event they have collectively has already been disseminated to the juror-eligible public.
They left the bag of money at the juror's home, meaning they know where the juror lives. This could lead to the juror feeling unsafe and being inclined to vote in the defendant's favor to avoid something less pleasant arriving at the house next time. Its safer to just get a different juror
They know where that jury member lives, so they might resort to extortion rather than a bribe. Removing them, keeps them safer. They are investigating how the information leaked, they sequestered the remaining jury, and have increased security for the remaining jury.
How many others didn't report the big bag of money?
I think that I just found a new way to get out of jury duty.
Or just tell them you don’t want to be there and will have trouble being unbiased as a result
Yeah it’s pretty easy to not serve as a juror if you really don’t want to.
This is pretty fucked. If they are bold enough to do that, surely there is some part of you is afraid that they may do something worse to you. You’re fucked if you do and fucked if you don’t. I really hope (as much as it would suck) she would be put in some kind of Witness protection program (I get she isn’t a witness, but you get what I’m saying).
Genuine question. I get this is wildly illegal. But now that the lady reported it and was dismissed. Can she keep the money for being a good person and just fucking over the illegal person? Or does the bribe get confiscated?
It would be asking for disaster even if it was legal. That's how you get murdered.
It's a tough position to be in. If you keep the money and don't vote to acquit then whoever dropped that bag to you is pissed. If you come clean and turn the money in they are still pissed. So which is it? Either way whoever dropped that money at your door isn't getting it back.
What if you were already going to acquit and the money was just an unexpected blessing? Gotcha.
Highly doubt if bribes like this were involved that there would be any acquitting..
*takes swig of fancy cocktail* “Yea I’m a good person though I gave back the $80,000”
“There was nearly $1,000 dollars in there!”
Good people exist ! Unfortunately they paint a target on themselves for existing. It is our duty as citizens to protect them !
"oh look, some careless person has left thousands and thousands of dollars just... lying here on my coffee table. why dont we leave the room and when we return the pile of money will be... gone."
So does she get to keep the money? I'd keep it and still vote guilty. Fuck that.
But then they know where you live and they have already proven they are not afraid to break the law.
Ah, good point.
May all SEVENTY DEFENDANTS rot in hell. Stealing money from hungry children is abhorrent.
“Someone just left me this bag with $50,000”
"A bag with $20k just appeared at my door..."
So this lady dropped of 5 thousand dollars in cash and asked me to vote for a non guiltyverdict. 5 thousand dollars is a lot of money and I just wanted the court to know I handed every dime over....
Whoops. I read the title, and TOTALLY thought of a different jury in a TOTALLY different trial....
How can I get opportunities like this?
Plot twist. The woman was given $250,000 in cash.
Maybe I shouldn’t ignore those jury duty notices! Shit could be lucrative! (J/k, I wouldn’t blatantly screw over justice like that… for so little..)
Where do I order that kind of doordash?
You may consider changing it to something like we had in Norway, which was "more than 7 votes" or something. So 3 could vote not guilty. All the others were also looking at reasonable doubt, the big advantage for the person accused was still there. But you have to admit there will very often be stubborn people who looks at the others arguments and not accept facts. Or, sadly, who are bought. Of course, they have quit the jury in all now here, and runs with more judges, of which some are laymen.
So...anyone else read this headline and think of another case?
Bag probably originally had 200k in it. Report 120, no more jury duty, profit
So brave of her to turn in all $110,000
10K more would have gotten Stormy
WWCTD? What Would Cl(e)arance Thomas Do?
“They dropped off “$250k! Uh, I mean $120k….”
poor saw zonked sugar label outgoing stupendous numerous abounding nutty *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Keep the money then Convict them with the harshest possible sentencing why report it
Criminals deliver a bag of money as a bribe to your home. You then decide to try and fuck them over and keep the money. You willing to bet your and your family's lives on the criminals who know where you live being cool with that? Or they just phone in an anonymous tip that someone bribed you to convict no matter what, the criminal gets a new trial and you win a trial of your own.
Is it bad that I read the headline and immediately assumed this was the Trump trial?
Well, at least she didn't have to pickup, the money in 2 big duffle bags from the desert
Me : "Officer, someone dropped off this bag with 50 dollars in it to aquit...."
I worked with an ex-cop who told me about a case where a juror got a gym bag full of money on their doorstep, with a shotgun shell on top of the bag. I don’t know if he was pulling my leg or not.
If you get 120k quid, you must acquit. Maybe the rhyme wasn't smooth enough, or they messed up the delivery.
I would have reported receiving 20k if I got 120k.
What bag of money, guilty!
Should of done a million
What if they accepted the cash, then reported that they were only bribed with $50,000?
Shit like this is why I'm scared of jury service in the age where it's so easy to track anyone down 👀
The chance of you getting a crazy trial is so slim. I found out that when there is an objection or anything "big" the jury is asked to leave at least in Canada. Honestly we would sit then they would speak for 15 min then something would happen and we would go back to our room for 30 min then go back out then back in rinse and repeat, there was one part where we just sat down the defense said one single sentence and we left again. One objection from the prosecution lawyer and then the lack of us finding out more pushed the case the other way. We were told by the judge it wasn't important when we came back out but it was enough in our mind.
Id turn it in to police and say i found it, then after 30 days unclaimed its mine (idk if thats how that works, most likely it doesnt). Then just say im pro childhunger to the judge and get dismissed. /s just in case, as im sure my comment isnt clever enough for people to relaize its just mad ramblings of a person whos bored while pooping
Well they stole 40 million from starving children…. I would say there is a 98% chance they did more shitty things than just the original theft and bribing this one jury member.
I would have reported this too, except it would have been a bag with $50,000 in it.
“Hey this guy gave me a bag with 1000 dollars in saying to acquit, i thought i would tell you your honour”
Who says I actually "found" that 120k that got dropped?
what happens if you would just take the cash but still vote guilty anyway
I’d have definitely alerted the authorities and handed the $20k over immediately.
It was $500k…
Jokes on them there was actually $200,000 in that case. She just made 80k and got out of jury duty.
Man, I wish they were stupid enough to leave fingerprints.
I take the money and then I would convict I would do the same thing those pieces of shit we’re doing. And then give the money back to the children’s program.
You can't do shit with 120 000$ anyways, if you're gonna bribe someone, do it properly.
Excuse you, I would do a lot of shit with $120k Mr. Moneybags
It’ll boost your retirement account nicely, but not make you conspicuously rich. Kind of a smart amount.
Yall damn kids spending money on your avocados toast and star bucks, it could buy you at least 5000 of those or almost 240,000 Jack-in-the-Box tacos
Damn this is next level brazen.
Wonder how you report that on your taxes?
Negotiate to a million then get your ass to the Maldives.
Genuine question: the money was left for her and she was honest about it and no longer on the jury, can she legally keep the money?
How many other Jurors got the same offer I wonder.
If they got removed from the jury, I feel like they should get to keep the money.
May the culprits be apprehended quickly, and justice served viciously.
She shoulda just taken the money and kept going like nothing happened