Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So, you would willfully ignore jury instructions and commit a crime to protect someone who common sense told you drove drunk?
What crime is that? It is not against the law to insists that the state prove its case to me, which is why some states do not require a unanimous verdict in order to convict.
In Arkansas, and apparently in Nevada to, and in other states I assure you, the state does not have to prove the defendant was DRIVING while intoxicated, they simply have to prove the defendant was in control of the vehicle. Ignoring that distinction when deciding the case would be ignoring jury instructions, which is a civil crime.
What crime is that? It is not against the law to insists that the state prove its case to me, which is why some states do not require a unanimous verdict in order to convict.
In Arkansas, and apparently in Nevada to, and in other states I assure you, the state does not have to prove the defendant was DRIVING while intoxicated, they simply have to prove the defendant was in control of the vehicle. Ignoring that distinction when deciding the case would be ignoring jury instructions, which is a civil crime.
I get that, but I still get to decide how I vote if I am on the jury, which is why we have them. It is not illegal for me to think for myself and ignore the jury instructions, ask your ADA if you do not believe me on that one. If it was we could just ignore the juries and send people straight to jail.
So, you would willfully ignore jury instructions and commit a crime to protect someone who common sense told you drove drunk?
In Arkansas, and apparently in Nevada to, and in other states I assure you, the state does not have to prove the defendant was DRIVING while intoxicated, they simply have to prove the defendant was in control of the vehicle. Ignoring that distinction when deciding the case would be ignoring jury instructions, which is a civil crime.
I get that, but I still get to decide how I vote if I am on the jury, which is why we have them. It is not illegal for me to think for myself and ignore the jury instructions, ask your ADA if you do not believe me on that one. If it was we could just ignore the juries and send people straight to jail.
Oh yeah? Next time you're on a jury and the judge instructs you not to discuss the case with anyone, go do so and see if you don't get in trouble for doing so. You most certainly will, you can't ignore jury instructions, else why even give them.
In Arkansas, and apparently in Nevada to, and in other states I assure you, the state does not have to prove the defendant was DRIVING while intoxicated, they simply have to prove the defendant was in control of the vehicle. Ignoring that distinction when deciding the case would be ignoring jury instructions, which is a civil crime.
I get that, but I still get to decide how I vote if I am on the jury, which is why we have them. It is not illegal for me to think for myself and ignore the jury instructions, ask your ADA if you do not believe me on that one. If it was we could just ignore the juries and send people straight to jail.
Oh yeah? Next time you're on a jury and the judge instructs you not to discuss the case with anyone, go do so and see if you don't get in trouble for doing so. You most certainly will, you can't ignore jury instructions, else why even give them.
I get that, but I still get to decide how I vote if I am on the jury, which is why we have them. It is not illegal for me to think for myself and ignore the jury instructions, ask your ADA if you do not believe me on that one. If it was we could just ignore the juries and send people straight to jail.
Oh yeah? Next time you're on a jury and the judge instructs you not to discuss the case with anyone, go do so and see if you don't get in trouble for doing so. You most certainly will, you can't ignore jury instructions, else why even give them.
That is not a jury instruction, it is part of being on a jury.
They give jury instructions so the jury will know what it is supposed to decide, and the legal guidelines of that decision. One of the instructions they give is that each and every member of that jury has to make up his own mind and vote his own conscious. It is impossible to go after any member of a juror who does that, even if that vote flies in the face of all the facts. Like I said, ask.
Oh yeah? Next time you're on a jury and the judge instructs you not to discuss the case with anyone, go do so and see if you don't get in trouble for doing so. You most certainly will, you can't ignore jury instructions, else why even give them.
That is not a jury instruction, it is part of being on a jury.
They give jury instructions so the jury will know what it is supposed to decide, and the legal guidelines of that decision. One of the instructions they give is that each and every member of that jury has to make up his own mind and vote his own conscious. It is impossible to go after any member of a juror who does that, even if that vote flies in the face of all the facts. Like I said, ask.
We're talking about THIS specific instance. IF the judge tells the jury "you must consider DUI under Arkansas law does NOT mean that the defendant was caught driving drunk, the only thing that must be proven is that the defendant was in control of the vehicle while drunk" and you choose to vote not guilty b/c the guy was only caught in control of the vehicle but not actually driving, you are ignoring jury instructions; which is a civil crime. My wife says that is a standard jury instruction in Arkansas because most people don't understand the law and need it explained. She can also tell of specific instances where jury members have turned other jury members in for doing exactly what you say you would do.
You, [the jury, have] a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy... oth objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.
That is not a jury instruction, it is part of being on a jury.
They give jury instructions so the jury will know what it is supposed to decide, and the legal guidelines of that decision. One of the instructions they give is that each and every member of that jury has to make up his own mind and vote his own conscious. It is impossible to go after any member of a juror who does that, even if that vote flies in the face of all the facts. Like I said, ask.
We're talking about THIS specific instance. IF the judge tells the jury "you must consider DUI under Arkansas law does NOT mean that the defendant was caught driving drunk, the only thing that must be proven is that the defendant was in control of the vehicle while drunk" and you choose to vote not guilty b/c the guy was only caught in control of the vehicle but not actually driving, you are ignoring jury instructions; which is a civil crime. My wife says that is a standard jury instruction in Arkansas because most people don't understand the law and need it explained. She can also tell of specific instances where jury members have turned other jury members in for doing exactly what you say you would do.
Jury nullification is a real part of the system, whether the system wants it there or not.
Refer your wife to Sparf vs United States where SCOTUS clearly ruled that
You, [the jury, have] a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy... oth objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
So that means that I am correct in my assertion that I can ignore jury instructions that attempt to tell me that the only thing I get to decide are what the judge says I decide.
QW, ConHog's right, and you are DEFINITELY wrong.
I was involved in a sensational case here years ago where three cops beat the tar out of a petty theft suspect and they were even caught on video whailing into him in a real ultra-violent 'Clockwork Orange' style billy club beating.
The jury foreman, an ex-client of mine previously in therapy, who had minor run-ins with the law, was so anti-cop, he was found to taint the jury with his rantings because of his previous minor arrest and his subsequent 'big-mouth'.
The county spent almost two million on convicting these cops, who were visibly (the video was there!) and in all honesty guilty, but a mistrial was legally declared because I was able to give a subpoenaed deposition proving that the jury foreman was anti-cop biased. Therefore, mistrial.
Cops walked, community in an uproar, county didn't want to try the cops again, too expensive.
Bottom line, we have a legal system, and justice does not necessarily prevail. But, thats' the law.......
QW, ConHog's right, and you are DEFINITELY wrong.
I was involved in a sensational case here years ago where three cops beat the tar out of a petty theft suspect and they were even caught on video whailing into him in a real ultra-violent 'Clockwork Orange' style billy club beating.
The jury foreman, an ex-client of mine previously in therapy, who had minor run-ins with the law, was so anti-cop, he was found to taint the jury with his rantings because of his previous minor arrest and his subsequent 'big-mouth'.
The county spent almost two million on convicting these cops, who were visibly (the video was there!) and in all honesty guilty, but a mistrial was legally declared because I was able to give a subpoenaed deposition proving that the jury foreman was anti-cop biased. Therefore, mistrial.
Cops walked, community in an uproar, county didn't want to try the cops again, too expensive.
Bottom line, we have a legal system, and justice does not necessarily prevail. But, thats' the law.......
How does that make me wrong? What you have there is someone who obviously lied about his views, as I am positive he was specifically asked about bias during voire dire. On the other hand, if I believe a law is wrong I have a SCOTUS decision that says I am allowed to determine that and not be bound by the law.
I agree with the court ruling. There are plenty of drunks out there driving cars endangering the public. This is police harassment. Getting intoxicated is not illegal. Whats next? A policeman sees you drunk in your front yard and there is a car in your driveway and the key is in the ignition so he arrests you? How about the police going into a bar and arresting everyone with car keys in their pocket? DRIVING DRUNK is against the law. Sitting in a car drunk is not. How do you know the guy didn't decide at the last minute he was impaired and is about to call a friend or a cab? It is called presumed innocense.
I agree with the court ruling. There are plenty of drunks out there driving cars endangering the public. This is police harassment. Getting intoxicated is not illegal. Whats next? A policeman sees you drunk in your front yard and there is a car in your driveway and the key is in the ignition so he arrests you? How about the police going into a bar and arresting everyone with car keys in their pocket? DRIVING DRUNK is against the law. Sitting in a car drunk is not. How do you know the guy didn't decide at the last minute he was impaired and is about to call a friend or a cab? It is called presumed innocense.
Um, the engine was running, do you really think he hadn't been at least intending to drive that car? Had the engine been OFF, I'd probably agree with you.
We're talking about THIS specific instance. IF the judge tells the jury "you must consider DUI under Arkansas law does NOT mean that the defendant was caught driving drunk, the only thing that must be proven is that the defendant was in control of the vehicle while drunk" and you choose to vote not guilty b/c the guy was only caught in control of the vehicle but not actually driving, you are ignoring jury instructions; which is a civil crime. My wife says that is a standard jury instruction in Arkansas because most people don't understand the law and need it explained. She can also tell of specific instances where jury members have turned other jury members in for doing exactly what you say you would do.
Jury nullification is a real part of the system, whether the system wants it there or not.
Refer your wife to Sparf vs United States where SCOTUS clearly ruled that
FindLaw | Cases and CodesYou, [the jury, have] a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy... oth objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.
So that means that I am correct in my assertion that I can ignore jury instructions that attempt to tell me that the only thing I get to decide are what the judge says I decide.
Actually, she says to inform you of US v. Thomas, No. 95-1337 (2nd Cir. 5-20-97)
Jury Nullification
in which the 2nd district court has given courts the power to remove jurors if they are suspected to be considering jury nullification.
As of yet, there is no SCOTUS ruling on that, nor is there a case before them, so until then this ruling is the latest and highest ruling ruling on the matter.
QW, ConHog's right, and you are DEFINITELY wrong.
I was involved in a sensational case here years ago where three cops beat the tar out of a petty theft suspect and they were even caught on video whailing into him in a real ultra-violent 'Clockwork Orange' style billy club beating.
The jury foreman, an ex-client of mine previously in therapy, who had minor run-ins with the law, was so anti-cop, he was found to taint the jury with his rantings because of his previous minor arrest and his subsequent 'big-mouth'.
The county spent almost two million on convicting these cops, who were visibly (the video was there!) and in all honesty guilty, but a mistrial was legally declared because I was able to give a subpoenaed deposition proving that the jury foreman was anti-cop biased. Therefore, mistrial.
Cops walked, community in an uproar, county didn't want to try the cops again, too expensive.
Bottom line, we have a legal system, and justice does not necessarily prevail. But, thats' the law.......
How does that make me wrong? What you have there is someone who obviously lied about his views, as I am positive he was specifically asked about bias during voire dire. On the other hand, if I believe a law is wrong I have a SCOTUS decision that says I am allowed to determine that and not be bound by the law.
No you do not QW. read the ruling I gave you. A judge can absolutely remove a juror if he suspects jury nullification. He can further charge you with contempt of court if you willfully ignore his instructions. You are NOT allowed to say "I don't like this law, so I'm voting not guilty." That's ridiculous.
A judge can absolutely remove a juror if he suspects jury nullification. He can further charge you with contempt of court if you willfully ignore his instructions. You are NOT allowed to say "I don't like this law, so I'm voting not guilty." That's ridiculous.
A judge can absolutely remove a juror if he suspects jury nullification. He can further charge you with contempt of court if you willfully ignore his instructions. You are NOT allowed to say "I don't like this law, so I'm voting not guilty." That's ridiculous.
This is a correct statement of the law and a correct statement of what happens in real life in actual courtrooms.
A judge can absolutely remove a juror if he suspects jury nullification. He can further charge you with contempt of court if you willfully ignore his instructions. You are NOT allowed to say "I don't like this law, so I'm voting not guilty." That's ridiculous.
This is a correct statement of the law and a correct statement of what happens in real life in actual courtrooms.
You are absolutely correct. That does not change the fact that jury nullification is part of our system of law, and the only real power citizens have to negate laws that are wrong. Suffering under laws until the courts or legislature gets their act together is a form of tyranny, which is why we have a jury to decide criminal cases.
