Meanwhile, because she's black in Texas prosecutors are still trying to throw Crystal Mason in prison for an actual innocent mistake from all the way back in 2016 - https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/civil-rights-attorneys-urge-court-to-uphold-crystal-masons-acquittal-in-fraud-case/3684918/
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
191 points (99.5% liked)
News
23397 readers
3658 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
As fucked as that situation is, it's not the same situation.
It comes down to the fact that she did actually submit an illegal ballot. How that happened is where the shit is fucked up, but the base fact of a. Illegal ballot being submitted is there. In this case, he didn't actually submit a second ballot, the poll workers didn't give him one.
If he's being charged for a crime that requires submitting two ballots, but he only ever submitted one, it's pretty clear that he didn't do the specific crime he's accused of. Even if the context around it is extremely suspect, at best.
It’s not very provisional then, is it.
Was he charged with voter fraud or attempted voter fraud? For many crimes, attempting a crime is a separate crime that carries penalties even if not successful in the actual crime. Not sure if that is the case here.
Right, except the person in OP was charged with attempting.
When "haha just kidding" wins a court case
Gonna try this next time I am in a bank
“Gimme all your money…”
guard stands up and puts his hand on his gun
“…Syke!”
guard sits back down
Definitely gonna get away with it
I am adding this to my defense portfolio
As much as no one wants to hear it, this is probably the right decision by the jury.
He didn't actually vote twice. He never received a second ballot. The poll workers saw he voted previously and didn't give him another ballot. I'm not sure about this state in particular, but the law is likely written explicitly about submitting multiple ballots, and that didn't happen here.
His claim about just testing the system is probably a lie, but he claims that if he was given a second ballot that he wouldn't have filled it out. We have no way of proving whether or not he would have, it didn't happen. Our judicial system is based on what we can prove, and we can't prove things that didn't happen.
The lack of an actual illegal ballot being submitted, and his claim that if the poll workers messed up and he was given another one that he wouldn't have actually submitted it, was deemed credible enough by the jury. He didn't actually submit an illegal ballot.
Most other voter fraud cases involve multiple ballots, submitting ballots without voter registration, etc. and not a case where an illegal ballot was never actually submitted.
I completely disagree.
An attempt to commit a crime occurs if a criminal has an intent to commit a crime and takes a substantial step toward completing the crime, but for reasons not intended by the criminal, the final resulting crime does not occur. Attempt to commit a particular crime is a crime, usually considered to be of the same or lesser gravity as the particular crime attempted.
You cannot audit law enforcement by attempting to commit crimes and use that as an excuse to get away with it. While, yes, receiving a second ballot is not in itself a crime, doing it intentionally is clearly an action that serves no legitimate purpose and only serves to allow them to commit the crime of voting multiple times. He inarguably took substantial steps to commit a crime. And he had the intent to do what he did (i.e. he didn't forget or get confused or was misled. He knew what he was doing and did it anyway). Therefore, this was pretty clearly attempted voter fraud.
If you still disagree because he only tried to collect a ballot, but hadnt yet attempted to cast it, let me give you a comparable situation that may make the crime a bit more visceral feeling. Your landlord gets caught installing a hidden camera in your bathroom. Technically, all he had done at that point was responded to your notice of a broken outlet, entered your apartment with the necessary notice, removed your broken bathroom outlet, and had a hidden camera outlet device on hand and no other replacement outlet. Technically none of the individual acts were illegal and you caught him with the device before it was installed. He claims that he was never going to turn it on, he was just testing you to see if you were being vigilant against such dangers and checking for hidden cameras in your home. So did he attempt to commit a crime? If your answer to this is yes, but not to the ballot thing, please explain the fundamental difference legally for me?
They probably didn't have you as a prosecutor there, unfortunately.
I'm a public defender. Was about to talk about how even though I'm as leftist as they come and find this guy reprehensible, that I'd have had no problems arguing what he argued in court.... But I missed that it was charged as "attempted." That's an excellent point. I agree that he almost certainly attempted to commit voter fraud.
That said, I can still see how the jury could find a not guilty though, even if, were I on it, I would have said guilty. Attempted crimes still have a mens rea (usually, and I'll note here that I'm not barred in PA so this is all a best guess, consult a local attorney to know anything for sure). So the state would still have to prove his intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm guessing the jury said they couldn't prove the intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Your argument convinced me, but, I can see how a jury might go the other way, for sure. Especially since juries are always unpredictable. I've won cases I should've lost and lost cases I should've won, you just never know what's gonna happen in the jury room.
Subpoena his Facebook messages and I bet you'd find him messaging friends how he was going to vote twice and they should too.
That would have been enough.
Not sure how you'd win access to them in the first place, but they've been used before.
Our judicial system is based on what we can prove, and we can’t prove things that didn’t happen.
Hooo boy, do I have some bad news for you...
Do you believe that attempted murder shouldn't be a crime because the perpetrator wasn't successful?
If the would-be murder was denied the purchase of a gun and then just decided to go get some MacDonald instead, then it's not really attempted murder.
Conspiring or planning, perhaps. But even then you'd need to prove what he was intending to do with that gun.
The referenced article from Cardinal News goes into much more detail.
In an interview with Virginia State Police on Feb. 8, Bell portrayed his second visit to the polls as a joke, according to the special agents who testified. In a recording of the interview, he said, “I was messing to see if they were gonna let me vote again to see what kind of fraud was going on.”
He told the agents, “But I went in and gave them my ID and then it showed up [that] I’d already voted.” He added, “So I was doing a little detective work.”
Commonwealth’s Attorney Daniel Rutherford took a dim view of Bell’s account, and noted that he was not authorized to test the system. The crime, Rutherford pointed out, is “attempting to vote twice, not voting twice.”
Would punishment fix this guy? Probably not. But now that this judge opens the door for other people to conduct their own tests, where does this stop? How many Trumpies do we let test the system? The poll workers have real jobs to do, and they don't need guys like this there. Laws like this are supposed to be good laws because they deter the action, rather than have to actually punish someone for doing one dumb thing, but if you allow the dumb thing, you negate the law itself.
Lots of great stuff in the Cardinal article too, like this nugget at the end that is very interesting:
The jury deliberated for an hour and came back with a not guilty verdict. When the seven women and five men were polled about the verdict, Juror 12 said, “That’s not my verdict.”
Judge Michael Doucette sent the jury back to work on the verdict, and while they were out for about 10 minutes before coming back with a unanimous decision, Rutherford said he’d never seen a juror announce that he did not agree with the verdict. Juror 12 declined to comment after the jury was dismissed.
Now if he would have voted for ‘D’ that would be an automatic voter fraud and grounds for calling off the entire election nationwide
Praise for the poll worker doing their job. The system works, at least in this type of example. Something to cite when a Republican claims people are voting twice. "You guys had someone test that, it's false."
What poll workers should really do, is not detect they've already voted and charge them with attempted voters fraud... let them begin voting the 2nd time and then stop them or get them after they completed things.
Now it's actual voter fraud and intent is proven.
What's the sun tzu art of war saying, never interupt an enemy making a mistake.
Hate the rural areas of this fucking country.
He DID vote twice. You could make the headline "man who commits voter fraud found not guilty of voter fraud".