• mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    4 months ago

    Generally speaking, any person can take anyone to court for any reason, and any prosecutor can charge anyone for any reason.

    Once it gets to court is where the “but your honor the Supreme Court said X Y Z” comes into it. And in a lot of cases that’ll get you off, and in a lot of cases that will mean the prosecutor won’t even try because the law is so clear that it would just be a waste of everyone’s time to make the attempt. But, the circumstances of the case and a compelling counter argument can make that not the only outcome, and the judge and jury have a lot of leeway up to and including “hey you know what I think the Supreme Court got it wrong as hell in this case, guilty guilty guilty.”

    When it’s fairly applied (which is, certainly, not even close to all the time) it’s actually a very good system.

    • Makeitstop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      Precedents get overturned from time to time, and the way that generally happens is when a new case comes along challenging that precedent.

      Maybe this goes nowhere. Maybe a conviction gets overturned on appeal. But maybe we could see a new precedent set. Might as well try, you’re probably not going to find a better case to do it any time soon.

      • redhorsejacket@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Wouldn’t the establishment of a new precedent require the Supreme Court to overturn their previous ruling though? I’m not super familiar with the judicial system, so perhaps someone could tell me if I’m on the right track here with this hypothetical series of events

        1. Charges filed
        2. Defense motions to dismiss case on grounds that police don’t have to protect anyone
        3. Prosecution counters that that’s not necessarily what they are arguing here
        4. Judge at the lowest level with jurisdiction decides to allow the case to proceed based on prosecutions argument that they aren’t litigating settled law
        5. Trial
        6. Defendants found guilty
        7. Defense files an immediate appeal and a stay of sentence because they still feel like their clients are protected by precedent
        8. Repeat until Supreme Court gets a writ of certiorari asking them to take up the appeal
        9. If SCOTUS accepts the case, they will decide if A) the defense IS actually protected by precedent in this scenario B) whether previous precedent is constitutional and C) the ultimate fates of the defendents 9.1 If SCOTUS does not take up the case, the lower court’s decisions are affirmed and that becomes legal precedent.

        Is that a probably series of events? Obviously the suit being allowed to continue and the defendents being found guilty are huge assumptions, but, assuming they come to pass, am I on the right track here?