Jury Nullification

[Cosmoline]

The basis is (as was pointed out in the GA state constitution) the fact that the jury is to be the trier of both the facts and the law. But the judges tell the jury that the judge is the trier of the law, and tha jury is to decide only on the basis of the facts, according to the law as explained by the judge. That's simply not what the laws say -- that's only what the judges say.

I have no qualms about nullification in criminal cases. And I object to the Supreme Court's decision to consider it a "power but not a right." It is an important part of the jury's role. But that doesn't mean the jury should replace the court as the arbiter of the law's meaning. For one thing, doing so would turn jury duty from a few weeks of work to years of work. Juries would have to sit in judgment on a complex array of motions, hear arguments and render decisions which could then be appealed. I don't think many people would stand for that on a juror's per diem! This has been my problem with the more radical "fully informed jury" pundits out there. They aren't even talking about nullification. They want to replace judges with some sort of bizarre permanent juries. Some even claim this should be the case in both civil and criminal cases.

In reality, nullification powers have nothing to do with juries judging the facts and the law. Rather, they are examples of the jury IGNORING the facts and the law for a greater good. The way it works is, the court instructs the jury on the law. The jury doesn't get to pull the law out of its nether regions. In rare circumstances where the jury feels that charges should never have been brought in spite of the law, or that the unique circumstances prevent conviction, then they can refuse to convict in spite of the law and the facts.

 

[Travis Lee]

So are we going to have 12 jurors who are child molestors set an obvious molestor free? I don't believe it. The worst one or two stubborn jurors can do is to hang a jury. If it's a good case, the DA will file again. Or are you really afraid that ONE NAMBLA guy is going to convince 11 other people to acquit, in spite of good evidence?

Are we going to start polygraphing potential jurors so we can stack juries to "do what they are supposed to", and convict as the prosecutor demands, regardless of evidence?

Like The DA in the Lacrosse "rape" case will demand?

If a jury convicts a child rapist-killer, what is there presently to prevent the judge from downgrading the charge, or "correcting" the guilty verdict and acquiting him, or setting him free with probation and a stern lecture?

If you have watched some of O'Reilly's recent programs, there are some judges who are almost exactly that.

If a judge is habitually gooney like that, there should be mechanisms for removing him.

Crazy stuff happens, sometimes, but I think the checks and balances we have are a GOOD thing. Jury nullification is part of it.

Our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]."

Go argue with him, Cosmoline.

--Travis--

 

[Cosmoline]

The issue of peremptory challenges and challenges for cause also seems to be creeping into the discussion. This has NOTHING to do with nullification. The notion of eliminating the right to peremptory challenges has been kicked around in the law reviews for awhile now. Though most of the time the concern is its use to eliminate minorities from the jury. It seems to me your real concern is excusing jurors FOR CAUSE because they have some knowledge of nullification. I agree this is wholly inappropriate and should not be allowed.

But by the same token, it's madness to suggest that jurors should be chosen without any inquiry into their basic background and views. Some may be related to a party or have a direct pecuniary interest in the case. Others may have had personal problems which make them prejudiced against a particular party. Do you want jurors who feel for personal or relgious reasons that they cannot actually pass judgment?

 

[Travis Lee]

I have similar qualms about NO qualification process, Cosmo....

But I just have to come back to similar advocations for "reasonable"
limitations on people owning guns.

Who DECIDES what goes on a questionaire?
WHAT is their agenda and WHO are they really trying to get on a jury,
keep off, or disallow from gun ownership?

I've heard, repeatedly, from people who study legal matters, that
prosecutors, and defense attorneys are NOT looking for reasonably knowledgable people, reasonably intelligent people, but people who each side figures can be manipulated into ruling their way.

We can't have the system dumbed down to select stupid jurors and then be surprised at bad results.

--Travis--

 

[Joey2]

Two days before Thanksgiving 2005 I was selected to sit on a jury. It was for a guy who was accused of B&E.

I was asked if I would follow the judges instructions to the jury and I said it depends on what it was.

I was not selected for that trail.

 

[LAK]

A jury can exercize jury nullification quite easily by simply reaching a not guilty verdict. As an individual juror all you have to do is fold your arms and sit tight with the same conclusion; it means a hung jury - and no conviction.

--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[antarti]

While that road is High and ethical, the footing is treacherous and the fall long. I'm not trained in the law, but I think that might be taken as perjury if the juror is discovered to have lied in their answers to the court.

Very simple. I don't understand Jury Nullfication fully. I answer "I don't understand what you're asking" or "I don't know", as that is a 100% honest answer.

Since I now am going to sit on a jury, and have heard this term (from one of the lawyers involved), I go look it up and read up, so as not to be a "dunce" at the trial. After all, they brought it up.

If asked later, I tell the truth (the above).

 

[emc]

Speaking of definitions, etc., one thing to keep in mind (primarily at the federal level) is that the precise definitions of some terms and concepts are set by government agencies. How many of us would consider drug addiction as a disability? Federal guidelines specify that it is. As a juror, this is not something that I could go along with, so if an addict sued for damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act, regardless of those guidelines, I would ignore any instructions to consider any regulations that would classify it as such. Due to issues such as this, I am very leery of judges trying to maintain total control over what juries think a particular term should mean.

FWIW,

emc

 

[A. Patriot]

FIJA

Many years ago, I was subpoenaed for federal court jury duty. On the first day, the judge asked all of us if any of us had heard of FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association). I hadn't at the time and no one else raised their hand.

I have always wondered what the judge would have done if anyone said they had?

At the time I was an analyst for my state's legislative watchdog committee. Needless to say, out of about 30 potential jurors, I was the ONLY person that did not sit on one jury in the 2 week period of the court.

 

[V4Vendetta]

EMC, cases like that are the reason I made this thread. Up until a few days ago, I had no idea that there was such a thing as jury nullification. Now that I found out, I want others to be aware of their rights too.

 

[emc]

V, I understand completely. However, there seemed to be a couple of earlier posts within this thread that didn't seem to fully appreciate what you were saying, so I offered a simple example to try to help out in some small fashion.

FWIW,

Ed

 

[xd9fan]

Judges do their best to not inform the jury of this power. I have even heard that they will say the state Leg has make it illegal.

I only first heard about nullification in 2003, when I ordered a "citizens handbook" from the GOA bookstore. (for only $1 very cool to spread around the workplace.....not that I have done that )

My education failed me. Glad to see that the so call "freedom generation" of baby boomer teachers taugh me well.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I was asked if I would follow the judges instructions to the jury and I said it depends on what it was.

I fear that in such a situation I would be very hard pressed not to give the only appropriate response: "How the hell do I know? I haven't heard the instructions yet." Somehow, I rather suspect this response would ensure that I would not be empaneled for that particular jury ... which might or might not be a good thing.