Jury Nullification goes to Trial?

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Oddball, Jan 21, 2011.

  1. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Continue reading on Examiner.com: Libertarian rights activist charged with jury tampering - National Libertarian news | Examiner.com Libertarian rights activist charged with jury tampering - National Libertarian news | Examiner.com

    Prediction: Heicklen will be hectored and harassed with a slew of spurious and specious charges, just like Laura Kriho was, only to be ultimately, and verrrry verrrry quietly, acquitted of all wrongdoing.

    Why?...Because jurors are completely within their rights to judge both the facts at hand and the applicability/justness of the law.

    Fully Informed Jury Association

    Stay tuned....I will.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Jackson
    Offline

    Jackson Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    19,636
    Thanks Received:
    4,872
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +12,677
    I often wondered , since I have watched trials and know how they work, if I was on a jury and informed them about jury nullification, would that be appropriate? Or would that be cause for a mistrial?
     
  3. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    I am ambivalent on this.

    Jurors are to say what the facts were. :: The judge is supposed to say what the law is.

    Jurors swear to comply with the law. :: Judges do not say what the facts are.

    But it has long been a kind of (dirty?) little secret in our system of Justice that jurors sometimes do revolt a little bit and REFUSE to apply an unjust law (or to apply a just law in an unjust manner).

    But it defies logic to tell a jury that is sworn to uphold the law that they may (simultaneously) disregard a law. (I mean, what kind of legal instruction to the jury could the judge give? "You, the jury, MUST obey the law, but you may also feel free to disregard the law if you feel like it!")

    I am unclear on how talking about jury nullification to a bunch of prospective jurors, however, constitutes jury tampering. That sounds kind of fishy to me. It also sounds like a possible violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.

    Keep us informed, by all means. I'd be interested in seeing how this unfolds.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    You would be dismissed with prejudice if you revealed that during the voir dire process.

    Maybe the most outlandish charge against Ms. Kriho was the accusation that she "sneaked" onto the jury, by not volunteering her knowledge of her rights before being seated on that panel....Which was, of course, ultimately thrown out.

    But now many of the judicial oligarchs are now making a point of it to remove any potential jurors who do know their rights.
     
  5. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Juries take an oath to follow the judge's instructions.

    However, if said oath can be construed to be attempting to circumvent or suspend one's rights, that oath is, as a matter of course, null and void ab initio.

    One of the biggest untold problems with trying to enforce alcohol prohibition is that juries were refusing to convict, on the basis that the law was unjust and capriciously applied.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2011
  6. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    What if you ended up serving on a jury that was hearing a murder charge against a man who shot an intruder in his house in the process of raping his wife. It turns out that this guy happens to be an ex con who took the gun away from the rapists, but the prosecutor is bringing charges because he is tough on crime, and believes that ex cons should always be put in prison if they touch a gun. If the judge instructed you to ignore everything surrounding the issue but the fact that this guy had a gun, and willfully used it on another person, would you think that his understanding of the law trumped your belief that everyone has a right to defend themselves and their family? Or would you send him to prison for the rest of his life for defending them?

    Jury nullification is not about ignoring the law, it is about keeping the law form being used to oppress people.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2011
  7. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    You are confusing different things. It happens.

    As I noted earlier, juries sometimes refuse to adhere to an unjust law. Or, even if the law itself is just, they may decline to APPLY it in an unfair fashion.

    But that's DIFFERENT than charging a jury on the law and telling them that while they are obligated by their OATHS to adhere to the law, they are nonetheless free to disregard the law if they dislike it in this case.

    No judge is EVER going to tell a jury that. It's self-refuting gibberish.

    Juries may DO it. But judges cannot "instruct" them that the law can be ignored at the same time that judges tell juries that they must follow the law.

    You are a juror. The defendant is charged with criminal possession of "B." The judge charges you on a (make believe) legal concept: "All A are always B."

    If you find that the Government has proved to you from all of the evidence -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- that the defendant possessed "A," then you must find that the defendant possessed "B."

    (So far, so good.)

    But I charge you as a matter of law, that even if the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant possessed "A," you are free to determine that the defendant did not possess "B."

    I mean, seriously. That's not a rational or reasonable statement of law. It's absolute gibberish.
     
  8. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    There's also the idea that a jury of average people will be able to recognize gibberish when they see and hear it.

    Therefore, they're perfectly within their right to say "Hey, that's damned gibberish!" and acquit.
     
  9. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    Jury nullification cannot get a judicial stamp of approval because it makes no sense in actual logic (nor as a practical matter) to simultaneously charge "you MUST do X" while charging "you are FREE not to do X."

    If the LAW says a jury MUST do X, then the judge will (unless a boob) so instruct the jury.

    What YOU are a proponent of, Oddball, is the notion that a JURY will have the presence of mind to REJECT "X" if X" is determined by them to be unjust or if "X" somehow constitutes a violation of what they recognize as an American's rights. I think you are correct. I think that's how come juries DO, periodically, come to verdicts that the "law" itself might not actually have contemplated.

    Juries tend to take their tasks seriously. Juries, by and large, wouldn't dream of "nullifying" a just law or nullifying the FAIR application of a law. But sometimes they absolutely WILL take a stand on an unjust law or on the unjust application of a law.

    In that latter sense, jury nullification is somewhat akin to that tool the SCOTUS granted to itself. But with a JURY, it's more a kind of NON-Judicial "review."
     
  10. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Which is why the judicial oligarchs hate nullification...Can't have mere rabble coming into the court and telling the ruling class that what they're trying to enforce is pure crap.
     

Share This Page