Oyez! Oyez! You are on a THR jury

Status
Not open for further replies.
isn't there a rule in court where the jury can refuse to charge based on the fact that the law is unjust..

My understanding is that the whole point of the trial by jury is that the layman can refuse to prosicute(or find guilty) based on an unjust law. Towards the end of prohibition juries were refusing to find people guilty of violating the Volstead Act.

Not sure.. But I thought that was an option for juries.

edited---new info

Jury nullification--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

So whoever said it's not the juries job to interpret the law is mistaken.
 
Fooey on that. I'll sleep fine after violating an oath that tries to take my rights away from me.
Click to expand...

So will I. And that goes double for an oath that tries to railroad an innocent man by taking his right to a jury trial away from him.
 
There is no ridiculous duty to retreat like the hypothetical stated a few posts before. Let's stick to this hypothetical involving the ex-felon (violent offender) with a gun.

What a shame. To some people, taking an oath means something. Nothing tricky about it.

Juries are not allowed to selectively follow the law. Before a jury is picked, the prospective jurors are subject to a process called Voir Dire. Voir Dire mean to tell the truth. Primarily, the lawyers want to select people who will tell the truth about whether or not they can follow the law. And before serving, the jury is sworn in and they agree to follow the law, not to consider punishment, not to be swayed by sympathy or prejudice, not to worry about the guilt of any other person, etc. etc.

Violent felons should not have guns. And if they have them in violation of the law, then they should be held accountable. That is all I am saying. BTW, do you guys realize what felonies are considered violent? Rape, murder, armed robbery, armed kidnapping, battery with a deadly weapon, battery with substantial bodily harm, etc. Again, these kinds of people should not have guns.

*** is this guy talking about railroading and taking the right to a trial away?

About this victimless crime. Your wife is a Mary Kay lady. She knocks on the door of a convicted rapist. He uses the gun he is not legally allowed to have to get your wife into his house. Once there, he sodomizes her for days with the gun and beats her to an inch of her death, just like he previously did, which is why he is an ex-felon. Still think it is a victimless crime?
 
There is no ridiculous duty to retreat like the hypothetical stated a few posts before. Let's stick to this hypothetical involving the ex-felon (violent offender) with a gun.
Click to expand...
It is hardly hypothetical. Some states (New York, to some extent, I believe) have a duty to retreat.

Juries are not allowed to selectively follow the law ... And before serving, the jury is sworn in and they agree to follow the law, not to consider punishment, not to be swayed by sympathy or prejudice, not to worry about the guilt of any other person, etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Actually, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said they can. The inherant right of a jury to judge the law and the facts was affirmed as recently as 1972, acknowledging that the jury has an "unreviewable and unreversible power ... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge." (US vs Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113).

About this victimless crime. Your wife is a Mary Kay lady. She knocks on the door of a convicted rapist. He uses the gun he is not legall allowed to have to get your wife into his house. Once there, he sodomizes her for days with the gun and beats her to an inch of her death, just like he previously did, which is why he is an ex-felon. Still think it is a victimless crime?
Click to expand...
Are you seriously making the claim that rape, kidnapping, and attempted murder are victimless crimes? :scrutiny:
 
Here's how our legal system is supposed to work. You elect representatives. They vote to pass, change, or eliminate laws.
Click to expand...

And if the government was constrained by it's own supreme law, 90% of it (and it's attendant problems) wouldn't exist today. Hypotheticals are nice, reality is different.

The power inherent in the jury is historical fact. The right to jury trial by ones peers exists for a real reason.

What a shame. To some people, taking an oath means something. Nothing tricky about it.
Click to expand...

Let us put prosecutors, judges, and defense council under oath as well during all proceedings, and get rid of all "plea bargains". I bet trial times are shrunk by 90%, and that some large number of lawyers are in jail soon after for perjury before the court. Imagine putting police officers to oath before allowing any questioning of suspects....

I like your idea the more I think of the ramifications!
 
It is not the job of the jury to disregard laws even if they don't agree with them.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. Check out the John Peter Zenger case. Also see other citations above.

Juries are not allowed to selectively follow the law.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? By what process are they prohibited? Does the state nullify their verdict? How does the state prove how a juror or jury arrives at a verdict? Is a juror or jury punished for reaching a "wrong" verdict?

*** is this guy talking about railroading and taking the right to a trial away?
Click to expand...

In this country (the whole country), a defendant in a criminal case has a right to a trial by an impartial JURY. If an accused is convicted only because the state has stacked the jury with jurors who do not know their duty, he has been railroaded. Fortunately, some folks know what their duty is regardless of what a judge may or may not instruct them.
 
New York does not have a duty to retreat like the hypothetical on page 2.

Juries are finders of fact, not finders of law.

I did not say that murder, rape, and kidnapping are victimless crimes. Someone else said that ex-felon in possession of a firearm is a victimless crime. I was giving a different perspective of how apparently victimless-crimes can lead to the comission of crimes against victims.

Yes, juries exist for a reason, as do the oaths they take before serving. Yes, the government must obey laws, just like the rest of us.

Prosecutors and Judges do take oaths, in addition to their oaths when they become members of the bar. Defense attorneys are only limited by the oaths they take when they join the bar. Plea bargains have nothing to do with oaths.

All one has to do to determine the job of a jury is to listen to the admonishments by the judge, read the jury instructions, and consider the oath that each juror takes.

The State cannot "stack" a jury to "railroad" a defendant. Neither can the defense. Both sides get to challenge for cause and get peremptory challenges.
 
SilverState said:
It is not the job of the jury to disregard laws even if they don't agree with them. If you don't like a law, there are other ways to eliminate them or have them changed. One way is to elect someone who will change the law, another way is to put initiatives on the ballot to change/eliminate laws, and finally you can support organizations, like the NRA, that will help to change laws.

But to disregard the law after you took an oath to obey the law as instucted by the court is contrary to our legal system. You give your word. If your word means nothing, you should not be on a jury.
Click to expand...
Your view as expressed here is similar to that expressed by Atticus, but yours is longer so I quoted that.

Did either of you read the link (provided earlier) to the Fully Informed Jury Association material, on the topic of "Jury Nullification"?

Would you consider the words of the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to have merit?
John Jay said:
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
Click to expand...
How about a former President?
John Quincy Adams said:
"It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
Click to expand...
Are you aware that, although the Supreme Court has ruled that judges do not have to inform juries that they have the right of jury nullification, they have NOT ruled that the right does not exist. In fact, I believe (legal eagles please help me on this) that they have confirmed that the right exists, only saying that judges don't have to tell us that it exists.

Here's that link again:

http://www.ibiblio.org/fija/doigart.htm
 
Think about what you do for a living. Think about how people who don't work in the same area have misconceptions about your work. You've heard the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Television makes it worse. People watch shows like CSI and Law & Order and think they understand the criminal justice system.

Well that's how I feel about this thread. People are posting based on some limited knowledge of criminal law. It is not their fault, but they just don't try criminal cases for a living.

Here's how this scenario would really play out. The cops would go to the shooting and take statments and write a report. They might submit it to the DA to see if charges are appropriate. The screening DA or DAs would review the submission packet and would deny the murder charge. No complaint for murder would be filed. No grand jury proceeding for murder would be commenced.

However, it is apparent that the shooter was an ex-felon, a VIOLENT ex-felon, and he had a firearm in his house. Certainly, the DA would proceed on that charge. And despite what people on this forum have posted, most juries would convict the defendant for ex-felon in possession of a firearm. That's the reality of it.

So if you guys want to read some case law to understand the theory behind the criminal justice system, that's fine. But for those of us in the trenches, we have been there and done that.
 
SilverState said:
I did not say that murder, rape, and kidnapping are victimless crimes. Someone else said that ex-felon in possession of a firearm is a victimless crime. I was giving a different perspective of how apparently victimless-crimes can lead to the comission of crimes against victims.
Click to expand...

So, are you implying that the "illegal firearm" caused the crimes?

Or perhaps if the assailant had a knife or a crowbar, then the murder, rape and kidnapping would no longer be crimes?

Do you also support the banning of cars to prevent drunk driving?

If a felon can't be trusted with a firearm after their release, why are they released in the first place?
 
Yes, some crimes happen when ex-felons get ahold of firearms. Like the one I mentioned above in my hypothetical.

In most jurisdiction, violent crimes involving cowbars or knives are treated the same, i.e. commission of such and such with use of a deadly weapon, to-wit:...

Yes, habitual drunk drivers who cause death or substantial bodily harm should lose their right to drive a motor vehicle.

If I had it my way, violent felons would serve more time than they do.
 
So, would you treat a felon in possesion of a crowbar the same as a felon in possesion of a firearm?

And as for this comment:

SilverState said:
If I had it my way, violent felons would serve more time than they do.
Click to expand...

Would you support returning felons' rights after they are released? If you can't trust them that far, why release them at all? Why continue endangering society with someone you obviously can't trust?
 
Releasing someone because you don't have enough room to keep them in prison indefinately has little to do with whether or not you trust them.

For example, a convicted child molester will usually be released from custody at some point. That does not mean I want him taking care of my child.

Another example, a convicted rapist is released from prison. Would you let him live in your house with your wife while you are away on business?

A third example, a convicted thief is put on probation. Would you trust your business' cash register to him/her?
 
SilverState said:
Releasing someone because you don't have enough room to keep them in prison indefinately has little to do with whether or not you trust them.

For example, a convicted child molester will usually be released from custody at some point. That does not mean I want him taking care of my child.

Another example, a convicted rapist is released from prison. Would you let him live in your house with your wife while you are away on business?

A third example, a convicted thief is put on probation. Would you trust your business' cash register to him/her?
Click to expand...

My question would be why any of these individuals are released in the first place, if they weren't "rehabilitated" enough to re-enter society.

If you could not trust a convicted rapist around your wife, why should he ever be allowed to leave prison, or even be allowed to continue breathing? Wouldn't we be better off by simply executing such criminals, and not release them back into society?

And if they are "rehabilitated", why should we not trust them?
 
I've known about Jury Nullification for quite some time now, and must admit that I am actually looking forward to serving jury duty, if ever possible.

It's nice to feel that "We, The People" can actually have an active part in our Justice System.

Of course, another option would be to have the laws apply equally to everybody...:rolleyes:
 
SilverState said:
Here's how this scenario would really play out. The cops would go to the shooting and take statments and write a report. They might submit it to the DA to see if charges are appropriate. The screening DA or DAs would review the submission packet and would deny the murder charge. No complaint for murder would be filed. No grand jury proceeding for murder would be commenced.

However, it is apparent that the shooter was an ex-felon, a VIOLENT ex-felon, and he had a firearm in his house. Certainly, the DA would proceed on that charge. And despite what people on this forum have posted, most juries would convict the defendant for ex-felon in possession of a firearm. That's the reality of it.
Click to expand...
You are probably correct as to how it would likely play out "in the real world." But El Tejon's original post did not ask how it would probably play out in the real world -- he asked us how we would vote. Many people have stated that they would not convict because they feel the law is wrong. You have stated that they would be breaking either the law or an oath.

You are incorrect. The concept of jury nullification has been recognized by the courts, and is written into the constitutions of several of the states. There is nothing in the law that says a juror must nullify, and if you are so black-and-white, by-the-books that you believe an ex-felon who has been released from prison has no right to maintain the tools with which to defend himself within the walls of his own home, then by all means accept the judge's instructions and vote accordingly.

But do not tell those who would do otherwise that they would be breaking the law. They would not.

More from the FIJA:

http://www.caught.net/juror.htm

Or as this same truth was stated in a earlier decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).
Click to expand...
 
I am not wrong and you can believe in reality or not, that is up to you.

I agree that based on the given facts, a murder conviction is not appropriate because the killing was in self defense.

But ex-felon in possession, it doesn't matter what the poeple on this board believe, the defendant would probably be found guilty, and rightly so, after all, he is a violent ex-felon in possesion of a firearm.

And disregarding the law after you took an oath saying you would not do that is a violation of that oath. It is called honor and your word and the telling the truth during Voir Dire.
 
SilverState said:
What a shame. To some people, taking an oath means something. Nothing tricky about it.
Click to expand...

That oath--the one where I swear to follow the instructions of the court--is wrong. It forces a man to choose between his honor as a truthteller and his duty to give justice to the accused, both of which a man must do. It forces a potential jurist to chose between one wrong and another, to either lie or to be bound to the possibility of doing injustice to the accused, and is therfore immoral. It's not worth spit.

There are oaths worth my sacred honor, and there is that oath.
 
Indeed, honor is not betraying your oath. I agree with you.

Honor is also seeing that justice gets done, rather than agreeing to serve only on the condition that you do whatever the court says.

Here we are in the complicated world of "there is no 100% right thing to do." In this case, lying to the state offends my sense of honor, but less than allowing the state to pack the jury with yes-men. And how offended should I be when the state has stacked the deck so unfairly with an oath that gives one three choices: to lie, or to do what the state says, no matter how unjust, or to let the state put another person on the jury who is either a liar or a yes-man. What kind of choice is that?

The state stacked the deck so that it decides what justice is. Why... now why am I supposed to feel bad if I lie to the state so that at least one card in the deck will have an impartial view, and not merely the view the state wants me to have?
 
Honor is not something you turn-off when it doesn't suit you. You either have it or you don't.

Read one of my previous posts about how a jury is selected and how both sides get to participate in the Voir Dire process and how both sides get to challenge for cause and how both sides get to exercise peremptory challenges. So there is not "stacking" of they jury by either side, despite what you see on television.

Oh, and this word you throw around, "justice", it means the truth. Some of us have devoted our lives to that idea and we took an oath to uphold it. We don't just decide not to follow that oath when we disagree with the result.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
  • Poll
Oyez! Oyez! You are on a THR jury...SBS
2 3
Replies
72
Views
2K
TC-TX
T
Z
  • Locked
Today in the National Park Morning Report
Replies
4
Views
815
bruss01
B
D
  • Locked
A Review of Self Defense (MD Specific, But All Should Read)
Replies
1
Views
964
Spot77
S
B
  • Locked
for Pax, Legal Jeopardy.
Replies
2
Views
468
pax
P
tuj
  • Locked
my wife was on a self-defense case jury
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Sheepdog1968
S
Back
Top