Jury Duty and Gun Trials

[KD7ONE]

I'm sure a lot of people on this list have done jury duty at some point in their lives. If you have a chance to do it again, here is something to remember:

JURY NULLIFICATION

Jury nullification has been upheld as a sacred legal principal in English common law for 1000 years. Alfred the Great, a great English king a thousand years ago, hung several of his own judges because they removed jurors who refused to convict and replaced these courageous jurors with other jurors they could intimidate into convicting the defendant on trial.

Jury nullification also goes back to the very beginning of our country, as one of the crucial rights our Founding Fathers wanted to protect. Our Founding Fathers wanted juries to be the final bulwark against tyrannical government laws. That's why they emphasized the right to a jury trial in three of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. John Adams, second President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, third President and author of the Declaration of Independence, John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury all flatly stated that juries have the right and duty to judge not only the facts in a case, but also the law, according to their conscience.

In 1969, in "US. vs. Moylan," the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of juries to judge the law in a case. In 1972, the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the same principal.

How come the judge didn't tell us this?

That's because of the Supreme Court decision in "Sparf and Hansen vs. The United States in 1895." That decision said juries have the right to judge the law, but that a judge doesn't have to inform juries of this right. Cute, huh? And guess what happened after this decision? Judges stopped telling juries about their rights."

Judges know about jury nullification. All judges do. But they hate letting juries decide the law. They hate juries taking power away from them. That's why judges never mention a jury's right to judge the law, and most Judges squash defense attorneys from saying anything about it in court.

 

[thexrayboy]

Glad to know you are aware of the concept, it has been discussed here in great detail at times. Not sure if it needs a new thread though.

 

[lacoochee]

Some topics need to be brought up regularly, new folks find this site all the time and if they have never heard of the concept, how would they search for it? I see a lot of posts that are duplicates and there is always someone that tells us how it's a duplicate thread even if the duplicate thread was from 6 months prior. Here's a little secret, at this point, they are all pretty much duplicate threads, very little new information makes its way here anymore. So seriously let it go, breath....

 

[Geno]

This is shocking. I saw on a TV trial recently where they jury said, "We disagreed. We wanted to find him innocent, but the law is the law, even where you feel the law in unjust and wrong. The judge said, if we found he violated the law, we had to find him guilty, even if we found the law unreasonable."

If over-charging victims doesn't kill our Constitutional rights, I guess judges just don't advise juries...that will.

 

[jpk1md]

+1 on the resurrection of the topic.

How does Jury Nullification work? Is it initiated by the Jury, Defendant etc?

 

[KD7ONE]

Jury Nullification is when a jury nullifies a bad law by making a not guilty verdict.

 

[ilbob]

it is not quite that simple. juries have an obligation to make sure that the totality of the cirucmstances of the act that a person may have committed is considered. the courts really hate this and generally refuse to let the jury know they have this obligation.

it is not so much nullification as it is making a judgement that a law breaker should not be punished in a specific case because of the specific circumstances.

some people have taken this way too far and have come up with all manner of nutty ideas.

 

[JerryM]

I have wondered if one's verdict was a "nulification" vote if he let it be known he might be held in contempt of court. You swear that you will find in accordance with the law. Not sure how one could get out of that if his attitude were known.

Anyone here with any experience or knows of any US case law pertaining to it?

It may be one of those things that sounds good but could not be put into effect. I would not be willing to go to jail to make the point. I would probably just vote not guilty, and claim that the case was not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt. That would be true.
On the other hand if the evidence was so overwhelming as to be beyond dispute, I could in good conscience claim jury nullification, or that it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Best,
Jerry

 

[bogie]

I'd like to hear more myself - I was scheduled for jury duty last month, but the guy pled or something, and it got cancelled...

How would we likely see this used? Someone gets busted with a half-ounce of weed, and the prosecutor is going nuts on "law and order" and is asking for 5-20?

Missouri has fairly decent gun laws now - loaded weapons in cars, no problem, legal CCW. If someone's carrying without a permit, they're either not to bright, or a crook. Is it our determination to see if they're mentally deficient?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Double Jeopardy And Nullification

Jury nullification has been upheld as a sacred legal principal in English common law for 1000 years. Alfred the Great, a great English king a thousand years ago, hung several of his own judges because they removed jurors who refused to convict and replaced these courageous jurors with other jurors they could intimidate into convicting the defendant on trial.

This is one of the best reasons for the prohibition on double jeopardy in the Fifth Amendment.

I have wondered if one's verdict was a "nulification" vote if he let it be known he might be held in contempt of court. You swear that you will find in accordance with the law. Not sure how one could get out of that if his attitude were known.

The law also includes the Supreme Law of the Land - the Constitution. Your "oath to find in accordance with the law" as a juror must also include the constitutionality of the law, since the constitutionality of the law must first be determined to ascertain whether the alleged violations are violations of valid law. Judges are bound to the supremacy of the Constitution and take an oath to that end. You as a juror cannot be held to the Constitution to any lesser degree than any judge is so bound - no matter what a judge may say in defiance of the oath (s)he took.

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood

 

[22-rimfire]

This may be a talked about topic here, but I think it merits refreshing interested people's minds.

I seem to get chosen for jury duty just about every year. Never got to a trial though as the case was either decided or I was not selected by the attorneys involved. It seems I get dumped when they parties involved learn I'm a long time NRA member. I'm a witness for the prosecution in a case coming up in May. Not looking forward to that actually.

 

[average_shooter]

Anybody ever heard of the Fully Informed Jury Association?

http://www.fija.org/

I've heard it mentioned on an internet radio show. Never really looked at the site, but I think FIJA advocates the jury nullification thing.

 

[MechAg94]

I have been to jury duty twice and been picked and served through a trial twice. In neither case was I asked any questions about my background. Might have been those particular cases though. One was just a 3 hour small claims case.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

How does Jury Nullification work? Is it initiated by the Jury, Defendant etc?

It is initiated by you, the juror, refusing to convict if you believe the law a defendant violated is a bad or unconstitutional law. That's all it takes, "Just say no."

That catch-22 is that you cannot even mention the term "jury nullification" or the judge is likely to declare a mistrial and put the defendant through the whole dog and pony show all over again. You see, we uppity serfs aren't supposed to know about jury nullification, and it gets the authorities really upset when we do. So keep your lips zipped, and just vote your conscience. You do NOT have to explain your vote, to the other jurors or to the judge. You are required by law to vote for acquittal unless that prosecution proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt. So you can just sit back and repeat that you don't believe the prosecution satisfied that standard. That's what you are there for, and nobody is entitled to question that if that is your opinion.

You'll have eleven other jurors pretty unhappy with you, possibly, but that's their problem.

 

[Ieyasu]

That catch-22 is that you cannot even mention the term "jury nullification" or the judge is likely to declare a mistrial and put the defendant through the whole dog and pony show all over again.

Yep. Especially in California. Excerpt:

SAN FRANCISCO--Jurors must follow the law--not their consciences--even when they strongly believe the law will produce an unjust result, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The court rejected a centuries-old doctrine called "jury nullification," which gives jurors the power to follow their convictions rather than the law.
"A nullifying jury is essentially a lawless jury," Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for a unanimous court.
Nullification, a doctrine rooted in old English law, has been debated by judges, lawyers and legal scholars for decades. In recent years, advocates of nullification have seen it as a weapon against unpopular tax laws and increasingly harsh criminal sentences.
Monday's ruling was the first in which the state high court directly confronted the principle. The court held that a judge properly excused a juror who said he could not convict an 18-year-old man of unlawful sex with a minor--the defendant's 16-year-old former girlfriend.

(http://homepage.smc.edu/sindell_steven/AJ3 Folder/Currentevents/aj3.jury.nullific.html)

 

[Pilgrim]

This is shocking. I saw on a TV trial recently where they jury said, "We disagreed. We wanted to find him innocent, but the law is the law, even where you feel the law in unjust and wrong. The judge said, if we found he violated the law, we had to find him guilty, even if we found the law unreasonable."

The time I saw jury nullification in action was when the jury got mad at the prosecutor and the 'victim'. It was an embezzlement case where the junior assistant manager of a fast food joint was accused of pocketing the night deposit to the tune of $300.

The trial went 2-1/2 days which the jury thought was a waste of time. The jury was angry that it took the prosecutor so long to try the case. The jury also didn't have much sympathy for the manager of the store when it became apparent in the trial that the manager did not follow the company's internal controls procedures to prevent such theft.

I was baliff in this trial. After the jury found the defendant not guilty, a couple jurors confided in me by saying, "We knew he did it, but we didn't like how the district attorney handled the case."

I just shrugged and told them they did what they thought they had to do.

Pilgrim

 

[ilbob]

I read somewhere that something like 1/3 of the jury trials in some courts in NYC result in not guilty verdicts and the juries are very clear that they did not care much whether the defendant committed a crime or not. The most common reason is the desire to not "see another young black man sent to jail".

 

[El Tejon]

How jury nullification works in the real world: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=134025&highlight=jury+nullification

 

[JerryM]

It is important to realize that the law, at any paraticular time, is what the Supreme Court says it is. You or I might believe that a certain law is unconstitutional and go for nullification, but what we believe does not make it law.
I believe that if one stated that he did not find in accordance with the law because he believed the law to be unconstitutional he would be held in contempt. Maybe with enough thousands of dollars he would get off, but I personally am not willing to be the test case, except as it might pertain to freedom of a Christian pastor to preach the Bible.

I would like to know of some actual cases in recent times that would support jury nullification as a major factor in a vote of not guilty. Any information?

Regards,
Jerry

 

[Autolycus]

In cases where a gun is involved I am sure the prosecutor asks whether your a member of a gun rights group like the NRA or such. And the defense should ask whether your a member of the Million Mom March.

Is it against the law to lie about what groups your with? Either way I think it is wrong to assume that my beliefs will influence my sense of justice. I mean if it doesnt influence the judge how can it affect me?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

SAN FRANCISCO--Jurors must follow the law--not their consciences--even when they strongly believe the law will produce an unjust result, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The court rejected a centuries-old doctrine called "jury nullification," which gives jurors the power to follow their convictions rather than the law.
"A nullifying jury is essentially a lawless jury," Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for a unanimous court.
Nullification, a doctrine rooted in old English law, has been debated by judges, lawyers and legal scholars for decades. In recent years, advocates of nullification have seen it as a weapon against unpopular tax laws and increasingly harsh criminal sentences.
Monday's ruling was the first in which the state high court directly confronted the principle. The court held that a judge properly excused a juror who said he could not convict an 18-year-old man of unlawful sex with a minor--the defendant's 16-year-old former girlfriend.

Based on this, I would not say "except in California," I would say "especially in California." This is precisely why a fully informed juror should avoid mentioning (if possible to do so without perjury) knowledge of jury nullification. The fact some judge in CA says the concept doesn't apply does not in my mind negate the fact the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court wrote that it does apply.

Loose lips sink ships. Shut up and vote your conscience.

 

[Ieyasu]

Such jurors are usually filtered out during voir dire anyways. At least in California, jurors are often asked whether they have any problems with the laws a defendant is being accused of violating.

 

[JerryM]

I suspect most would be filtered out during the selection process. However, I have been surprised a couple of times when the jury was being selected. The question was "Does anyone have a problem with alcohol, that is the drinking of it?" Or somethins similar. I said that I did, and did not consider it an excuse for any action, and further that if I could outlaw it I would.

The case involved vehicle accidents, and I thought I would not get selected. But I did.
Regards,
Jerry

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It's easy to say you don't have a problem with the law if you don't know what the law purports to say. Often, the idiocy of a law doesn't become fully apparent until after a judge tells the jury what he thinks they are supposed to believe that it says. I know of one former law in a New England state that had been on the books for 80+ years without a single arrest or prosecution under it. When a local police department finally arrested someone for supposedly violating it, the judge threw the sase out because the defense attorney pointed out that the law clearly and explicitely prohibited advertising a certain service, and the sting team had not responded to an advertisement but had themselves solicited the defendant.

The law was quietly repealed about 18 months later.

 

[STW]

I've been on a jury where gun charges were on the list of charges. In this case and, I suspect, most other cases with gun charges, they are a secondary matter, more a way to add time and/or show the badness of the bad guy (or girl - must be fair).

Evidence for this in this case was in the federal prosecutors opening statement where he claimed the defendent had an AK-47. This was not too long after a shooter shot up a school in NorCal with an AK. The trial itself featured an H&K of some type. I and one other guy on the jury were just a little incensed at the prosecutor for this ploy. The defendant also had a silencer but no gun to fit it. (I recall that he said he got it so he wouldn't disturb the neighbors.)

However, we could have tossed the gun charges out and he still would have served some hard time on a mess of drug charges. (Note to self - Do not discuss deals for hundreds of pounds of illegal drugs on camera.)

It's been almost 20 years so I don't recall details or even what we found him guilty of just that guns were a minor issue in a larger case.