Juror charged with contempt of court for refusing to uphold unconstitutional gun law?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zoogster

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
5,288
Contempt of court is a failure to follow the lawful orders of a court of law.
One of the questions in jury selection (at least around here) is if a person will put aside thier own beliefs and follow the instructions to uphold the law as it is written, and base thier opinion of guilt or innocence on what the court instructs them is the law (in more or less words).
So technicaly a juror unwilling to uphold something unconstitutional should never actualy make it onto a jury if they are honest in the selection process, because they would have to answer that they are not willing to follow those instructions if they are wrong moraly or constitutionaly.

However lets just pretend they did. That somehow a jury member willing to say someone is not guilty of something which they clearly did because they moraly disagree with the charge to begin with ends up on a jury.

If they are not following the orders of the court instructing them how to make thier decision, and during deliberation clearly believe the accused is in fact guilty, but will only say innocent, intentionaly deadlocking the jury, can they be charged with contempt of court? (which can be a felony)
If you were the juror on a case involving some asinine gun law, and you refused to convict someone even if you believe the facts show they did what they are charged with, are you breaking the law if the judge says you are in contempt and refusing to follow the instructions of the court?

Obviously they could just play dumb and act like they really believe the person is innocent (causing everyone else to think they are simply retarded because they would have to defend thier position) and be perfectly legal, but lets pretend they don't. That in deliberation it is clear to everyone the person simply will not uphold the law they feel is wrong.
 
If a person wanted to make a "statement," they could declare that they were flaunting the court's instructions, which would probably incur the wrath of the court. If a person is only interested in doing what they think is right, there is no need to create waves - they can vote on the jury, keep their mouth shut, and go home.
 
A juror represents the people. In that capacity, he weighs both the facts and the law as it applies to the case. The jury system protects thus protects society from its government and laws at odds with what society deems proper. The juror is under no obligation to accept the judge's opinion of the law. A juror is under no obligation to take an oath to that effect either. It is that oath which is clearly unconstitutional. One merely has to tell the judge that he cannot require such an oath--or prevent a spot on the jury for refusing to take it.
 
I originally wrote the text below as part of an email, and I copied/ pasted them directly from my outbox, so some wording/ references may seem out of place for this discussion, but it's a hell of a lot easier than researching and writing it again. I I cut a lot of unrelated text between the excerpts indicated with a [...] and ommitted a bit of unrelated text before and aft.

However, the sole method for handling a bad law is not the legislative option, though that option would ensure that no person be charged in the future, if successful. When jurors deliberate a case, they have two options- guilty or not. While there is a standard of "beyond any reasonable doubt" to reach a guilty verdict, there is none such for a not guilty verdict, which must never be confused with "innocent". Such a verdict may be returned even if the accused admits to the bad acts. This is under the historic and little known doctrine of "Nullification by Jury" under which jury may find that the underlying law is itself wrong.

[...]

As with there being no standard for finding one not guilty, there is no algorithom for a juror believing that the law is bad. As with a jury choosing to accept a self defense or insanity defense, it is nearly entirely subjective.

While you are correct that the courts may not necesarily instruct the jury as to their rights to assess the law in deliberation, that does not affect the legality of the doctrine, the basis of which was expounded by Sir John Hawles who indicated that there the potential for the jury to be unfairly biased to the His Honor and thus (possibly) the state if not allowed to rule on matters of law. In the tradition of the landmark 1836 ruling, United States v. Fenwick (Federal Case 15,086; 1836), which asserted the right of matters of law to be presented to the jury, Stettinius v. United States (Federal Case 13,387, 1839) reserved the right for the defense to argue matters of law to the jury prior to the judge instructing them. Under the Stettinius ruling, the judge and the court itself are removed entirely. The matter is left purely to the jury.
 
If you tell the judge or refuse to take the oath, you'll be excluded from the jury.

It is simple -- you are under no obligation to explain to anyone the result of your deliberations. You might choose to find a person not guilty because the law is illegal or you might choose to find a person not guilty because of defendant's winning smile.

This is truly a "don't ask, don't tell" situation.
 
You can speachify, which will get you ignored and sent home.

Or not.

The principle that the juror is the tryer of both the fact and the law is the higher good.
 
Contempt of court is a failure to follow the lawful orders of a court of law.
One of the questions in jury selection (at least around here) is if a person will put aside thier own beliefs and follow the instructions to uphold the law as it is written, and base thier opinion of guilt or innocence on what the court instructs them is the law (in more or less words).
Click to expand...

This sounds like puritian law. Which yes I know that it is our historical adaptation into where we are now. I have never been called up for jury duty but I am doubting I will ever make it passed screening.

Some of the legal verbiage is really quite rediculous and I will never subscribe to it.

:)
 
This is why, if one actually gets onto a jury, a Libertarian juror is a prosecutor's worst nightmare.

If I was a juror on a criminal trial, my first question would be "is there a victim?" If there's a tangible victim, fine, proceed as normal. If it's some BS "crime against society" like carrying without a permit, driving without a seatbelt, etc, I'd acquit the guy regardless of evidence. (assuming he's got no prior felonies or whathaveyou)
 
I am inclined to think that in the vast majority of criminal cases this is not going to be an issue. Until you hear the evidence, there is no reason to assume anything about what your verdict might be. Keep in mind that the constitution of the various states and the US is also law. I do not see there is any conflict between your oath as a juror and deciding a law is not constitutional, and thus finding a defendant not guilty. Judges think they have that sole power, but really, anyone sworn to uphold the law has a moral duty to consider whether a particular law, or the application of it in a particular instance, is in fact constitutional. Most who are so sworn refuse to do so because there is a financial disincentive. Jurors are unpaid so they do not have that particular disincentive.
 
If you are a juror and make a decision, you do not have to say why you made that decision.... Just be quiet about it :p
 
Get rid of jury advisors and consultants. As far as I'm concerned, that's the basest form of jury tampering. Each side should get maybe half dozen juror challenges during voir dire and that's it. The only questioning that should occur is a basic: does the potential juror understand English, does he/she have any personal knowledge of the case, would he/she be biased for or against the defendant.

Interesting article from Psychology Today here.

I get more and more outraged with things like this. "Don't worry, you just sit there and rubber stamp our prosecution! After all, he must have done something wrong in order to be brought up on charges, right?" or "Hey, you don't need that scary gun for self defense anyway! That's what cops are for!" or "Just vote for who we think is best! If you don't you're just throwing it away!"

[/cynicism]
 
kurtmax
If you are a juror and make a decision, you do not have to say why you made that decision.... Just be quiet about it :p
Click to expand...

That is correct. I sat on a capital murder jury once. There were two jurors on the panel who were anti-capital punishment. They did not want to convict the guy (a confessed cop-killer) because he could face the death penalty. They were not required to give any reason for their vote. (They finally acquiesced and we convicted.)
The officers of the court will not question a juror as to his decision, or the reason for reaching it. Jury deliberations are completely secret.
 
Quote:
Jury nullification is right and proper. It's the very reason we have juries.
Click to expand...

It's even hinted at in the Sixth Amendment (although the concept predates the US Constitution)
Click to expand...

Yes I am aware of that, however the instructions of the court during the selection process where I am would remove anyone as a potential juror who believes in it. There is several questions that work towards that effect.

Many people think they are sly by getting out of jury duty, or being removed from the selection. What ends up happening however is only the ones not sly enough to get out end up determining the fate of people, setting legal precedents, and deciding the direction our nation takes one case at a time. Or another way to put it: The dumbest members of our society are the ones that end up deciding our fate, because many "sly" people are too lazy to due thier duty and interupt thier lives.

I knew a retired cop that got in the box and said he would be unable to judge anyone fairly because after being a police officer he would feel that anyone arrested deserved to be there. He would be inclined to convict on that basis.

Anyways I brought this whole topic up because where I am from they specificly ask people whether they will agree to basicly not use jury nullification one individual at a time. Anyone that does not agree will be removed from the box, and replaced with one of several dozen people waiting to replace those currently in the box. So jury nullification will only really happen if one of the potential jurors was to lie during the selection process to actualy make it onto the jury (in my area).
So does that mean certain jury selection processes currently in effect some places are unconstitutional?
 
Free Jurors

Unlike nearly everything else in the legal system, Jurors can't be threatened, punished, or questioned, for their decision. Believe me, its YOUR call when you are on the jury. Do your duty, ignore the BS, be just and go home.

I've hung several juries and sprung a few poor souls where either the law was ridiculous, the penalties far too severe, the plaintiff poorly or not represented, or the whole trial a farce. Mike Nifong and the court he worked in with the police who did the investigation at Duke are NOT a small aberration, they are typical of a large number of modern day prosecutors, courts and justice systems. They may TELL you you have to do this or do that, but believe me, you don't and if you keep it in the jury room, you are beyond their reach or control.

I'm NEVER finding anyone guilty of a gun crime. Never. I don't care if they shot the Pope. They may get attempted murder, but they won't get an extra gun charge from me. I'm not very crazy about prohibition (drug prohibition it is, these days), either, and traffic laws to me seem either unneccesary, over-penalized, or both. I don't trust the police more than a citizen after Nifong and Katrina, and haven't trusted the Federal police since Ruby Ridge. They lie. They destroy evidence. And when they don't they cover and stand silent for those who do. And when I show up for jury duty I am a well dressed and presented citizen who votes in every election, pays his taxes on time and has a clean record. When I get on a jury I'm the foreman nearly every time because I like and get along with people and help get folks organized.

They certainly ask whether you will do what they want right up front. I certainly tell them I respect the courts and the system and I certainly will!

And then I do.

If you ever GET on a jury, be an American.
 
gc70 said:
If a person wanted to make a "statement," they could declare that they were flaunting the court's instructions, which would probably incur the wrath of the court. If a person is only interested in doing what they think is right, there is no need to create waves - they can vote on the jury, keep their mouth shut, and go home.
Click to expand...
From what I have read, judges and prosecutors hate jury nullification. The courts have managed to establish that judges do NOT have to inform jurors that they have the right to decide whether or not a law is "right" or "fair" or constitutional. Judges routinely instruct jurors that the jury will rule on the facts, and the judge will rule on the law. However, legally that is not correct.

I suspect that in many courtrooms if you were to announce that you were openly refusing to convict because you don't agree with the law, the judge would declare a mistrial. That's better for the defendant than a conviction, but nowhere near as good as an acquittal. Better to keep quiet and vote your conscience. There's nothing that says you have to explain your vote, either to the other jurors or to the judge.

Of course, a hung jury is a mistrial, too, but a hung jury with no explanation of why you refused to convict gives the prosecution less information to use in another trial, and thus might possibly help dissuade them from seeking a retrial.

FIJA is a good group -- I recommend reading up on their information. It is an eye-opener. And it's infuriating. If you think it's bad that police can lie to suspects in trying to elicit a confession -- well how do you like the fact that judges can withhold from juries the information that the jury is SUPPOSED to decide not only the facts of the case, but also whether or not the law (or application of the law in the instant case) is just and proper?
 
Jury Duty Notes

When you GET on a jury, and get back in the jury room, you are going to find yourself with several folks who always seem to be there. It's the first time you get to speak more than a word to each other.

1. One guy, will be convinced, strongly, that they did whatever the police said they did, they NEED to be punished, and right NOW for more than the law allows. Failure to appear on a Parking ticket? Shoot em.

2. There will be three fairly confused folks who think they are there to do whatever the police and court say, but can't quite remember what went on, but think they are supposed to vote guilty and they are SHOCKED to be told gently that the person MIGHT be innocent and they CAN vote not guilty. They will think everyone in court goes to jail and think THEY will go to jail if they don't do what they think the police want.

3. Someone will consider anyone arrested by police to be guilty, but be a little uncertain about it.

4. There will be one Democrat or liberal, who actually thinks a little, who will silently be on the defendants side.

5. There will be one minority who doesn't want to vote either way and says: "You folks just do what you want. I'll go along."

NO one will understand or believe that there is anything called "jury nullification" and if you explain it, they still won't believe it. I skip it, myself.

I help everyone get seated and introduced and make notes of names, summon the bailiff and send him for coffee, cold drinks, water. (he's shocked and NO, we aren't paying. Go find it. Try the judges lounge. Please be quick.) I ask about bathroom breaks and get parking passes stamped, et, et.

By that time, you're the foreman.

Then I take a vote to see where we are.

Then we go around the table and make brief arguments for or against. Brief.

Believe me, you won't be judging Jack the Ripper. You'll be judging some 87 year old guy in a walker who didn't realize that handicapped parking stickers expire, came down to "talk to the judge" (which doesn't exist anymore), found out the fine was 650.00 and said he wanted a jury trial.

Most courts aren't about justice. They want the fine money. Our little Muni court makes about 10 million a year for the city budget. They can afford to let a few go.

At about this point, if folks are DETERMINED to stick some antiquarian with a fine equal to half of his monthly social security, (the judge always helpfully explains that the court DOES have payment plans) I say either we are "hung" because I am NEVER voting to rob this man because of a simple mistake, or hopefully that some folks will reconsider, because of the circumstances, but either way we ought to wrap this up and send the judge a note. I'm never as confrontational as that sounds, but I'm firm.

At this point the "Guilty and ought to be Punished" guy wants to rant a little, and I let him, conceding every point. But not changing my stance. The liberal wants to make a point or two, and kind of sways people because they aren't shouting.

Then we finally vote, send the judge a note and go out. SEVERAL times after leaving the building after hanging a jury someone walks next to me and says; "I wish we had let him go free."

If you ever go over 45 minutes, you have gone too long.

As much confusion as there is in a jury, I have THOUGHT about not announcing that we are hung, but writing the note however I THINK it ought to go. Not Guilty. Believe me, nobody in the jurors box would say a thing as you, the foreman, read the note. Might try it sometime just for the hell of it if it's something important. Yep, it would be WRONG, but what the heck. It's a corrupt system at this point.

No gun charges, ever. Period.

For your information, good or ill.
 
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."~~ John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and one of the authors of The Federalist Papers.
 
Happens around here occassionally and they usually pull that person and replace with one of the 3 alternates. They usually get pulled aside and instructed on the law first, then if they are still non-compliant with the court, disruptive, etc.. They just get the boot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
fincher's case and juror's rights
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
pcosmar
P
A
  • Locked
Principles discussed in the following transcend drug prosecutions.
Replies
5
Views
646
alan
A
V
  • Locked
Jury Nullification
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Aguila Blanca
A
J
  • Locked
Priest shooter cleared of gun charges.
Replies
1
Views
425
Yanus
Y
I
  • Locked
Oregon Court redefines self-defense
Replies
1
Views
847
Car Knocker
C
Back
Top