sarah jeong

@bergmayer than anything to do with enforcement in the real world, or changing how juries actually operate.

@bergmayer Apply any test and I think the jury would have done the exact same analysis on the exact same evidence and come out with guilty

@sarahjeong yeah. like I said I think the intent std does *some* work but lots of weird thinking about how juries work going on in this case

@sarahjeong Like, the *purpose* of the jury is exactly to decide what the "truth" is about ultimately unknowable things like "intent"

@bergmayer Lot of layers of "know" here too-- like we're speculating right now on how juries operate but really we don't know that,

@bergmayer the intent requirement includes whether or not the speaker knew certain things

@bergmayer including whether what he said was a true threat, which just turns into a recursive analysis-- not sure why Breyer doesn't notice

@bergmayer So the jury is trying to know something what the speaker knew, and whether he knew something that has knowledge in its definition