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.
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.