PieFedMan accused of voting twice found not guilty of voter fraud
MicroWaveapnews.com/article/voters-virginia-election-tri…
A man who attempted to vote twice in Virginia’s 2023 election was acquitted of attempted illegal voting on Monday, following his claims in court that he had been testing the system for voter fraud.
A Nelson County jury found 67-year-old Richardson Carter Bell Jr. not guilty of attempting to vote more than once in the same election. According to the Washington Post, Bell, a staunch supporter of former President Donald Trump, admitted voting early at his local registrar’s office only to also show up at a nearby polling place on Election Day.
55 Comments
Comments from other communities
gAlienLifeformMeanwhile, 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/
halcyoncmdrAs 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.
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.
VoyajerWhen "haha just kidding" wins a court case
Granbo's Holy HotrodGonna try this next time I am in a bank
Definitely gonna get away with it
“Gimme all your money…”
*guard stands up and puts his hand on his gun*
“…Syke!”
*guard sits back down*
Now if he would have voted for ‘D’ that would be an automatic voter fraud and grounds for calling off the entire election nationwide
RhaedasPraise 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.
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.
CephalotrocityOur 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?
PetteriPanoIf 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.
anon6789The 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.
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?
PugJesusHe DID vote twice. You could make the headline "man who commits voter fraud found not guilty of voter fraud".
Meanwhile, because she's black in Texas prosecutors are still trying to throw Crystal Mason in prison for an actual innocent mistake 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/
It wasn't even her mistake. She was told by someone in authority that she was allowed to vote.
Crimes dont apply to the whites, you silly goose.
What a shitty website that doesn't say a single fucking thing about what happened. It spirals into that jackass' spew of lying bullshit and nothing real to understand jack fucking shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Mason
She cast a provisional ballot, a mechanism specifically designed to check and count a vote only if the voter is determined to be eligible, on the advice of a poll worker, and was sentenced for voter fraud.
So...basically...what I just said...again.
...but not the writer; rather Texas itself.
I'm going to go buy some crack to test the system. Let's see how that turns out for me.
Just wear a MAGA hat, and you might pull it off.
If the majority of your county are crackheads and you opt for a jury trial you might just pull it off.
Laws are written in such a way that they don't allow the jury to decide if what the person did was right or wrong, just if they did or did not do what was said.
Do you agree they had a pipe in their possession?
Yes - jail.
Do you agree they had the drug on them?
Yes -jail.
The jury doesn't get to decide if they think it was okay for them to have the pipe/drug on them. A lawyer does their best to spin it in a way that maybe makes it appear the officer illegally made a search to make all subsequent findings inadmissable and invalid for charging. Or that the possession was not actually the person. But usually it comes down to, we found this on your person... And conviction of possession.
That's what they want you to think. You can, in fact, decide you think the law is unjust and acquit. You can just feel bad for the defendant, or think the protection is being too harsh
The judge isn't going to tell you that, they're going to tell you to follow their guidance
You can't be punished for a jury verdict, and you can't be compelled to return a certain verdict
Jury nullification
Tuna Cowboy discussed that below, it appears there are cases that show otherwise listed on the link he sent. In theory that is how jury's should work.
From said page:
In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. In 2017, a jury was instructed: "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case." The Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury's instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a harmless error and affirmed the conviction.[67]
Looks like it will get messy about whether such would be allowed, and whether you yourself could catch trouble for ruling against the law.
Reading through all of it, it's exactly as I thought it was, but I kept the complexity out
You cannot give jury instructions related to jury nullification. The judge can't get anywhere near the topic, and lawyers cannot directly argue the jury should acquit based on the law being unjust (they can certainly imply it though)
You cannot have already decided your verdict before the case, including based on the law involved. This is generally a moot point, because jury selection should catch this. If it doesn't and you didn't lie, then that's on the judge
So, they will never tell you that you have this power as a juror. But you do, *in all cases*
The only complicated part is on the part of the judge and the defense
Yeah, much of the issues brought up seem to be tied to prohibition where if guilty charges increased dramatically (roughly from 3 to 30 percent) it would say they are entering with a predetermined thought of going against the law. The other common cases brought up were all tied to racism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
From said page:
In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. In 2017, a jury was instructed: "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case." The Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury's instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a harmless error and affirmed the conviction.[67]
Looks like it will get messy about whether such would be allowed, and whether you yourself could catch trouble for ruling against the law.
Consider reviewing my initial comment, pay particular attention to if, and, and might
Wow, that's a lot less than 5 years. And he even did it on purpose!!!
The "testing" excuse is totally irrelevant, but he is white and he is Republican...
White, republican, yet was still found not guilty by a jury?! :O
Wtf, meanwhile you can go to prison for a sting operation where a victim does not exist or the illegal item/items you are buying do not actually exist
Rob a liquor store with an unloaded gun but someone present has a heart attack? Murder.
Rob a liquor store with an unloaded gun but the guy behind the counter pulls out a loaded one and kills your accomplise? Also murder.
Buy some heroin for you and your partner to use, leading you both to overdose, but you survive? Believe it or not, also murder.
e; Whether or not you think these make sense is beside the point, it's an obvious double standard when the lack of intent doesn't matter for these crimes but it gets this guy a walk
The first one I can kind of agree with tbh.
The second one too. If you're committing a crime and someone dies as a direct result of that crime, it's on you.
The hard part is that “direct” is subjective and up to interpretation of the court.
Depends on the state. In mine it doesn't matter. If someone dies while you're committing a crime, you're responsible regardless.
I would say the person doing the crime himself is to blame for his own death. I think there's a difference between an accomplice and an innocent dying.
But its a fine line, I agree, and also depends on other variables. If I start applying it to other examples:
If you are trespassing in a train tunnel doing graffiti, the train comes and you get out but your buddy gets hit, is it murder? I'd say not really.
If you're racing and your buddy hits a tree, it's not really murder either yet he wouldn't of been racing alone. It's a two player sport so I'd tend to say guilty.
Would your buddy have stayed home instead of robbing the store if you weren't there to help him, it's hard to say but I'd tend to go not guilty.
It also seems a bit vindictive but like I said, I understand the sentiment.
Usually the line is when someone dies in the commission of a felony.
No, because it isn't proportional.
A homeless man stealing a bottle of water with a security guard shooting up half the store due to bad aim as a result should not be charged for murder.
Besides, murder should always require intent to kill. Robbery - including armed robbery - does not usually imply this.
Those are two separate crime scenarios. The homeless person couldn't be charged with murder.
What if we alter the scenario slightly?
The homeless man ran "aggressively" through the checkouts (without paying for the water bottle of course) and the police "believed" he had a knife to force his way through. Water bottles sure look like knifes sometimes after all.
I'm fairly certain the homeless man would be charged with felony murder if the police shot bystanders (and the homeless man survived).
But these make sense. If someone is harmed in the process of you committing a crime, you are at least partly responsible for that harm. I agree with these, but I can see how they can be weaponized as well
I'd be fine with a conviction for armed robbery in either of those first two scenarios (and would excuse the store clerk from any charges because they didn't know the weapon was unloaded so it's reasonable self defense), but not murder. If we make everything a murder charge it just increases the incentive for robbers not to leave any witnesses.
(On the other hand, if you rob someone with a *loaded* gun and just say you never intended to actually hurt anyone I could probably be persuaded to call it attempted murder).
Someone should argue that every arrest made by undercover officers pretending to be prostitutes should be thrown out under this.
Just because you said yes, or even paid, doesn't mean you would have actually had sex, so you in reality could have just paid to "test" if the prostitute would actually agree.
What happens if, and I use a strong IF, a democrat did this? Oh, yeah, honest mistakes aren't allowed, but blatant flouting of laws is? do I need to put the /s?
republican voter attempts fully conscious and premeditated fraud attempt, immediately caught/failed, admits to willful fraud, found not guilty, voter and lawyer hold hands and yell, "it's rigged, stop the steal"
Seriously, go read full transcript of statements from this fucking goon throughout the process. Outrageously stupid.
What's funny is, the system failed the test! If it worked, he would be in jail.
If the system worked, Trump would be rotting in solitary confinement, not running for president
Also that yeah
Yeah! And I was just testing the banks security!
So he apparently didn't actually vote twice. He voted early. Then, on the day of the election he went to a polling place to attempt to vote again. When they looked up his name, they saw he had already voted and presumably didn't allow him to vote again. Because he didn't actually vote twice, there's no way they'd be able to find him guilty of voting twice. That'd be like charging someone with murder where the victim is still alive. They ended up charging him with *attempted* voter fraud. And if he told them something like "Had they allowed me in and given me a ballot I would not have filled it out and voted again. I was just testing the system." I could see people going easy on one of their own.
Just a little more context, because the article is really light on the details. After he had been turned away, the cops showed up at his house to interview him and he denied that it was him and it must have been someone else. This defense only came up later after his arreest.
It's BS and I suspect the only reason he was let off is because the town is overwhelmingly red and the jury was packed with Trump supporters. And of course they don't care about voter fraud when their side commits it, only when they imagine the other side is.
They think it's okay to do because they think they need to "balance out" the enormous amounts of voter fraud they're convinced is being committed by Democrats. The problem is, that's a complete lie, the Dems have done nothing. Every news story I've read about voter fraud in this election cycle (3 or 4?) where they actually mention the party, it's been a Republican.
We punish people for DUI's harshly because they COULD cause harm. They get charges beyond the DUI when someone IS harmed. This is like saying a person drove a car at parade full speed but ran into a baracade. "I was just testing the baracade to make sure the people in the parade would be safe."
But driving under the influence is literally the charge. There's also reckless endangerment and other tack on charges. You couldn't necessarily tack on attempted homicide, because intent is required.
In this case, attempted voter fraud is literally the charge. Sentencing guidelines are a state level decision.
That's just how the law works. If you want more punishment for failed voter fraud, pressure the state to increase the sentencing guidelines.
"was acquitted of attempted illegal voting"
Maybe you read something different than I did. He was acquitted of attempting to do what he did.
Therefore someone driving drunk, should be acquitted of driving drunk, right? That is worded as the attempt is the charge, not the act.
Which is why I compared it to something that we ban because it could injure someone, and then change the charges when they do harm someone.
Except he didn't vote twice. He got in line to do it. He was turned away. From there he could try to say he never actually intended to vote again and would have not filled out another ballot and submitted it.
The drink driving analogy to this is walking to your vehicle while drunk with your keys in your hand. Or sitting in your vehicle. In many states and jurisdictions if you are sitting in the car even without keys or actual intent to drive you can be convicted of "DUI".
Charge: "Attempted voter fraud"
That says nothing about voting twice, it says attempting.
He showed up tried to vote, got denied, lied to the police saying that it wasn't him, and then when he showed up to court obviously has to admit he did attempt to do so, but only did so because he was testing the system.
What part did I miss?
I'd say we can look up what the actual charge is listed as for that state, but honestly I think we might be better off not searching things about such right now.
Had you read the actual statute you'd have found "voter fraud" to be the *actual act* of voting twice. In another section the modifier *attempted* is defined as basically attempting a crime defined elsewhere. So you can complain about justice not being served all you want, but the jury was not convinced he would have voted twice. You can say you'd have convicted him even, but you weren't on the jury. I'm not arguing whether he should or shouldn't have been convicted. The original question that prompted this chain was how he wasn't convicted. I was providing a simple explanation as to why. Accept it or not. The part you missed was the part you explicitly said you didn't look into. The actual law on this issue.
Ahh, I guess I misread. I thought they got convicted for attempted voter fraud but acquitted of voter fraud.
Like I said, intent is a large part of the law. A lot of crimes don't get charged because intent is a high threshold to prove. Just because it seems the intent is obvious, proving it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law is a very different matter.
The fuck...?
What the actual fuck
brb. gotta do a test of my local banks security systems.
If this were British Columbia, before you vote you must make a declaration that you are eligible and did not vote already.
If you voted earlier/somewhere else, you could choose to show up at any polling place later, as long as you do not make the false declaration to receive your second ballot, you will not have committed fraud. The election person can be like, oh the digital record shows you voted already, and you can walk out. In remote areas, the paper voter roll of local voters will show whether they know you voted or not but other paper locations will not (if your polling location was way out in the sticks and you went to another rural place to vote). Mail ins are much the same, your name and signature on the declaration is the same thing as the verbal affirmation.
I know Trump's supporters are bad at logic, but this should show that these processes stop enough voter fraud to the point that you it's not really they need to get all worked up about.
Dripping with remorse, no malicious intent to commit butter fraud and so very deserving of acquittal...
"On Tuesday, the firm representing Bell, posted on Facebook: “Another NOT GUILTY on all charges!” Attached to the post was a photo of Bell wearing a red MAGA hat, referencing Trump’s “Make America Great Again” platform."
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. He'll be a state senator by Xmas.