this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2024
288 points (99.3% liked)

United States | News & Politics

1825 readers
270 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Euphorazine@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If the juror is allowed to keep the money after the trial if they report it, just means we will have open bribery of jurors.

"Yes, I got this $100,000 cashier check to vote guilty, so I'm going to vote not guilty to keep the $100,000"

[–] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You let them keep it as a reward for doing the right thing and reporting, but you also replace them in the jury.

[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So you can replace a juror of your choice for a bag of cash?

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Apparently you can do that already since this juror was removed. Also it sounds expensive with very little reward

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Not to mention it involves directly implicating yourself in a new crime (or several, since it would be both bribery as well as jury tampering). And it would be more evidence of guilt.