NELSON COUNTY, Va. — A jury in this bright-red corner of rural Virginia found an avid Donald Trump fan not guilty of attempted illegal voting in a one-day trial Monday, accepting the man’s claim that he was only trying to test the election system for voter fraud when he asked to vote a second time in local elections last year.
Archived at https://archive.is/U7AoW
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.
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.
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:
Even if he did get a second ballot and casted it, that should be on the system to deal with. As long as there’s not attempted fraud (ie: impersonating another person/fake ID, multiple identities, etc). Voting a second time could also just be an attempt to change your vote and invalidate the original ballot as well and now that digital systems are widespread, it would be a relatively easy thing to do.
Your argument is that it is on the system to deal with crime and that a person who commits a crime, even for what is perceived to be a good reason, should not be held liable for breaking the law?
I get that he didn’t actually commit the crime in this case, so there is plausible deniability. But criminal court treats attempting a crime as a crime itself, though with lesser penalties. And in your scenario a crime would have been committed.
Its only a crime if you make it a crime. Not saying the courts should be deciding that; election law should. If the system is designed to just not double count votes and use whatever the last cast ballot says, then there’s no issue with casting another ballot, so why should it be a crime to cast 2 or 3 ballots?