The NYTimes on defense of home

[alan]

moa:

Please see my comments on The Sullivan Law, addressed Baba Louie asked.

 

[publius]

Another article on jury nullification:
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/10/robinson.htm

In 1895 a divided Supreme Court ruled that the failure of a judge to remind jurors of the extent of their powers was not grounds for a mistrial or an appeal. From that time on the veto powers of the jury have been increasingly kept hidden from the public. In today's legal climate if a defense attorney tries to apprise the jury of their veto power said attorney will likely be charged by the presiding judge with contempt of court. That is quite ironic, if you think about it, since any court so hostile to the possibility of justice being done is worthy of nothing but contempt.

He also goes into jury stack...uh, I mean, screening.

The process of 'voir dire', the preliminary questioning of potential jurors or witnesses was originally designed to assure that all participants were competent individuals. Today the process, as it is used in jury selection, is primarily aimed at stacking the jury......

Picking and choosing jurors to get the kind of verdict the government wants is an obstruction of true justice. If a private citizen tried to exert such influence they would be charged with the serious felony of jury tampering. The fact that judges and lawyers can get away with it because it is customary for them to do so does not make it any less of a crime. By no longer advising jurors of the true extent of their duties, by denying to citizens the right to serve on a jury because they understand their responsibilities too clearly, the courts are engaging in behavior similar to that of organized crime.

 

[alan]

Publius:

Well said, if only more people realized, and acted on the obvious.

 

[TallPine]

I got kicked off ("excused from") a federal jury during voire dire because I said that I had a problem with making a federal case out of simple assault because of a "hate crime" statute.

I guess I should have lied and ended up "hanging" the jury on that one, but I was really in a bind at work at that time. Can they prosecute you for perjury in a case like that?

It sure opened my eyes - I saw how both sides (especially the prosecution) only wanted docile people who would do what they are told and not think for themselves. It is pathetic - the term "kangaroo court" comes readliy to mind.

 

[alan]

Tall Pine:

I've never served on any jury, always thought it could be interesting though. Must be about 15 or so years ago, when within about 1.5 years, I got summoned 4 times. Problem was that I was traveling a lot in those days, ah the adventure, romance and excitment of having a "traveling job". I expect that they essentially eliminated me from "contention", since I was never available.

Re your question, I suppose that one could always be prosecuted for something or other. Convicting someone might well prove a lot more difficult a thing to do. So much would depend on the jury. Seems that we might have heard this song before, doesn't it?