this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2023
31 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10182 readers
68 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

This is a really interesting analysis. Clearly there's no crisp language that would force her to. It seems like it would be surprising if they don't at least ask her to; yes there's a risk of making her hostile, but (a) it seems like she's going to be hostile to the prosecution anyway and (b) the risk of her dismissing the case before it goes to jury is just too great.

I guess we'll see.

[–] Perdendosi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Chronokill@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Thanks for this, good read. It seems to be a clash of comprehension between a layperson (what does a reasonable question of impartiality look like) and the judiciary (We're emotionless machines who are capable of cordoning off sections of our brain, how dare you intimate we can be biased). Seems its the judiciary making the call on this one.