Jury Nullification goes to Trial?

[Quantum Windbag]

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."

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.

There are other reasons to dislike the notion of jury nullification. Aside from sounding like a dick telling a jury that they MUST follow the law but that they are free not to ( ), judges sometimes have concerns that a jury might disregard that part of a complicated set of legal instructions which is actually NEEDED for the law to work PROPERLY. If a jury gets mislead due to emotionalism of some attorney's closing argument, for example, it might be helpful (if we want a jury to reach a fair and just verdict) if a judge steers them back toward REASON.

Jury nullification can be a wonderful (shhhh) tool. But it doesn't always achieve those results by the force of logical reasoning. And some verdicts that are unreasonable are also unfair and unjust.

We love jury nullification when a jury says "Fuck you" to a dumbass law like Prohibition, maybe. But we might not like it nearly as much if it leads a jury to acquit some asshole of murder which he committed and which the evidence proves he committed -- for reasons that have nothing to do with fairness, valid claims of right or justice.

Which would you rather have?

• A system that sometimes results in a jury getting emotional and acquitting a person or
• A system where the government can use the law to attack people that they do not like?

We currently live in the second, and I, for one, want it changed. In case you think I am being alarmist I point you to the case of Siobhan Reynolds, and the various doctors the government is currently hounding because they believe that patients rights and free speech trump government regulations.

The vindictive grand jury investigation of pain-relief advocate Siobhan Reynolds. - By Radley Balko - Slate Magazine

 

[Liability]

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.

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.

That would not be how it works. If you are going to nullify the first thing you do is determine if the law is being applied properly, and that the law is not unconscionable. If it passes those two tests you can determine if the accused is guilty, if it doesn't the person is not guilty.

Does that make it less gibberish, and more of a rational and reasonable statement of law?

What? You think there's some 'method' in how jury nullification 'works?'

Jury nullification "works" when a jury declines in some way to apply the law AS instructed by the judge.

But that's not even the question. The question became: how could any judge ever provide legal instructions to a jury that permit the jury to disregard the law if they disliked the law? And the answer is: obviously, s/he couldn't.

There is no possible valid legal instruction of the law as to jury nullification for that very reason. But that fact doesn't prevent some juries from engaging in it all the same.

 

[Ravi]

I'm almost afraid to ask what in hell you're babbling about.

No doubt...

In one thread you are saying the rabble shouldn't be allowed to vote and in this one you are siding with the rabble.

You are as big a phony as Liarbility, who claims to be a conservative while wanting the government to investigate people because they distrust the government.

Such irony should be a commodity to be enjoyed by all.

Maybe because there's a time and place for the opinions of the common man, in assenting to and enforcing the laws foisted upon them?

Maybe I'm in support of juries as the fourth branch of de jure government?

You know, that whole "separation of powers" thingy?

That doesn't really make any sense, considering your other beliefs.

Regardless, I would like to see the actual summons. He is either being summoned for putting out information on jury nullification or he is being summoned for harassing a judge.

The guy is certainly a crackpot.

 

[Liability]

I'm almost afraid to ask what in hell you're babbling about.

No doubt...

In one thread you are saying the rabble shouldn't be allowed to vote and in this one you are siding with the rabble.

You are as big a phony as Liarbility, who claims to be a conservative while wanting the government to investigate people because they distrust the government.

Such irony should be a commodity to be enjoyed by all.

Hey. Now, there's something you do see every day: The skank known as "Raving Lunatic" engaged in flat-out dishonesty.

Why is it, Ravi, that you cannot ever make any post based on honesty? Are you that fucking stupid or just a lazy bitch?

As you knew when you made your dishonest claim (deliberately) in your typically dishonest post, that is NOT my position. I have a conservative pal who has tried to argue on your behalf behind your back. But you just proved again that he's mistaken about you. You are not just stupid. You are a liar.

I have already corrected you when you made that false claim about my position. But I guess I'll correct your lie again:

I have suggested that some people with a marked and undeniable form of mental illness MAY prove to be more likely to go postal than other people. I have never said that they should be investigated merely because they distrust the government, you fucking scumbag intentional liar. 9/11 Troofers are a paranoid delusional group of idiots. Dangerous examples of such mental cases include the asshole who flew his plane into the IRS offices and, more recently, Jared Loughner.

Because Troofers demonstrate this kind of paranoid delusional thinking, I have suggested (and I have been partly serious about it) that it might be time to investigate them. I'd like to know in advance if some future Jared Loughner is about to go postal.

It's not their distrust of government that makes me suggest that looking at them (in advance of a tragedy) might be a good idea. It's the paranoid delusional form of their mental illness -- which could result in a very preventable tragedy -- that might justify taking a look at them.

Oh and one more thing, Ravi. You are a fucking scumbag liar skanky ho. Word.

With all due respect,

civilly yours,

Liability

 

[Ravi]

You protest too much, Liarbilty. Your thread is there for all to see.

 

[Liability]

You protest too much, Liarbilty. Your thread is there for all to see.

Which only proves that YOU are the liar, you skanky lying ho!

 

[Oddball]

No doubt...

In one thread you are saying the rabble shouldn't be allowed to vote and in this one you are siding with the rabble.

You are as big a phony as Liarbility, who claims to be a conservative while wanting the government to investigate people because they distrust the government.

Such irony should be a commodity to be enjoyed by all.

Maybe because there's a time and place for the opinions of the common man, in assenting to and enforcing the laws foisted upon them?

Maybe I'm in support of juries as the fourth branch of de jure government?

You know, that whole "separation of powers" thingy?

That doesn't really make any sense, considering your other beliefs.

Regardless, I would like to see the actual summons. He is either being summoned for putting out information on jury nullification or he is being summoned for harassing a judge.

The guy is certainly a crackpot.

It makes all sorts of sense, if you recognize that the republic has venues for the opinions of all, rather than everyone having a say in every venue.

But if you want to sit around and call the guy who stands up for the common man, in his role of juror, deciding on whether the laws imposed upon the citizenry are just or not a crackpot, then I guess depth of understanding really isn't your friend.

And I strongly suspect you'll not see a summons, as this is an action of harassment and not law.

 

[Valerie]

I have a conservative pal who has tried to argue on your behalf behind your back.

 

[Valerie]

Cat got your tongue, Liarability? Do tell....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That would not be how it works. If you are going to nullify the first thing you do is determine if the law is being applied properly, and that the law is not unconscionable. If it passes those two tests you can determine if the accused is guilty, if it doesn't the person is not guilty.

Does that make it less gibberish, and more of a rational and reasonable statement of law?

What? You think there's some 'method' in how jury nullification 'works?'

Jury nullification "works" when a jury declines in some way to apply the law AS instructed by the judge.

But that's not even the question. The question became: how could any judge ever provide legal instructions to a jury that permit the jury to disregard the law if they disliked the law? And the answer is: obviously, s/he couldn't.

There is no possible valid legal instruction of the law as to jury nullification for that very reason. But that fact doesn't prevent some juries from engaging in it all the same.

Of course there is a method in how it works. It has existed for hundreds of years and, despite the effort of prosecutors and courts to deny it, has a long history.

The very first jury trial held by the Supreme Court of the United States not only admitted the possibility of jury nullification, an instruction was issued that embraced the possibility without causing any serious breaches of legal decorum. It simply requires an admission of the real power of juries.

Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

Jurors' Handbook: Citizens Guide to Jury Duty and Jury Nullification

The judge should determine if the law applies in the way it is being used by a prosecutor. If the judge refuses to do that, who should?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Except that the OJ jury didn't acquit on the basis of nullification...They had only poorly presented evidence from a horribly inept prosecution team.

Exactly! The prosecution for OJ dropped the ball BIG TIME. I personally think he was guilty-but there was so much messing up and BS that the prosecution pulled, that I would have most likely ruled not guilty, because they didn't prove it beyond a probable cause.



Anyways, The judge's job to direct the jury on what their role, and what the law says. When I was on a jury for a criminal case we were told repeatedly (before and after being chosen) three things more than anything else:

1. The defense is not guilty, until proven otherwise-beyond a reasonable doubt/due to probable cause.

2. Laws aren't made by the courts-but upheld at the courts. You have to be able to give a fair trial-and if you're against a law, you will NOT be chosen (they'll ask the jury during selection if anyone's against the law for any reason).

3. The defense has the right to remain silent-and you must not think anything of it. It's up to the prosecution to prove the case-not the defense.

edit: and also the way we run our court system isn't to protect criminals-it's protect people who aren't guilty and on trial.

 

[Liability]

Cat got your tongue, Liarability? Do tell....

My reference to "behind her back" meant "in some PM's." And, as most of us know, PM's are not to be revealed.

So, I leave it up in the air -- just hanging there.

Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus; and yes, Valerie, there is at least one conservative who kinda sorta defends Ravi.

My vote goes to Santa Claus, however.

 

[Ravi]

Most conservatives get along with me. It's you faux cons that don't.

 

[Liability]

That would not be how it works. If you are going to nullify the first thing you do is determine if the law is being applied properly, and that the law is not unconscionable. If it passes those two tests you can determine if the accused is guilty, if it doesn't the person is not guilty.

Does that make it less gibberish, and more of a rational and reasonable statement of law?

What? You think there's some 'method' in how jury nullification 'works?'

Jury nullification "works" when a jury declines in some way to apply the law AS instructed by the judge.

But that's not even the question. The question became: how could any judge ever provide legal instructions to a jury that permit the jury to disregard the law if they disliked the law? And the answer is: obviously, s/he couldn't.

There is no possible valid legal instruction of the law as to jury nullification for that very reason. But that fact doesn't prevent some juries from engaging in it all the same.

Of course there is a method in how it works. It has existed for hundreds of years and, despite the effort of prosecutors and courts to deny it, has a long history.

The very first jury trial held by the Supreme Court of the United States not only admitted the possibility of jury nullification, an instruction was issued that embraced the possibility without causing any serious breaches of legal decorum. It simply requires an admission of the real power of juries.

Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

Jurors' Handbook: Citizens Guide to Jury Duty and Jury Nullification

The judge should determine if the law applies in the way it is being used by a prosecutor. If the judge refuses to do that, who should?

It is a self-refuting legal instruction. And it is not the law of this land.

When juries do it (and nobody can really stop them if they are of a mind TO do it), it will never be the product of a legal instruction given to them by a judge.

No. You are mistaken. Is there such a thing as jury nullification? No doubt about it. Can it be charged to a jury as a matter of the legal instructions on any criminal case? Not really. It would be a legal instruction absolutely and facially devoid of logic. Without such legal instructions, will jury nullification still occur? Pretty clearly, the answer is yes.

And to get back to the OP topic a bit closer to the bone: is merely talking about jury nullification in front of prospective jurors REALLY subject to valid criminal charges of "jury tampering?" No.

Here's some irony for you. If those charges got lodged and the "defendant" got a jury trial, the jury would necessarily hear a SHIT LOAD about "jury nullification" the very topic of the speech the defendant is accused of using to engage in this mysterious "tampering." If the prosecutor could "prove" those charges, the jury could then acquit the defendant all the same -- via jury nullification.

 

[Liability]

Most conservatives get along with me. It's you faux cons that don't.

Except, your false labels have no power in the discussion. I am a conservative, not a faux conservative and I don't get along with you because you are a shrill, dishonest and very stupid biddy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What? You think there's some 'method' in how jury nullification 'works?'

Jury nullification "works" when a jury declines in some way to apply the law AS instructed by the judge.

But that's not even the question. The question became: how could any judge ever provide legal instructions to a jury that permit the jury to disregard the law if they disliked the law? And the answer is: obviously, s/he couldn't.

There is no possible valid legal instruction of the law as to jury nullification for that very reason. But that fact doesn't prevent some juries from engaging in it all the same.

Of course there is a method in how it works. It has existed for hundreds of years and, despite the effort of prosecutors and courts to deny it, has a long history.

The very first jury trial held by the Supreme Court of the United States not only admitted the possibility of jury nullification, an instruction was issued that embraced the possibility without causing any serious breaches of legal decorum. It simply requires an admission of the real power of juries.

Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

Jurors' Handbook: Citizens Guide to Jury Duty and Jury Nullification

The judge should determine if the law applies in the way it is being used by a prosecutor. If the judge refuses to do that, who should?

It is a self-refuting legal instruction. And it is not the law of this land.

When juries do it (and nobody can really stop them if they are of a mind TO do it), it will never be the product of a legal instruction given to them by a judge.

No. You are mistaken. Is there such a thing as jury nullification? No doubt about it. Can it be charged to a jury as a matter of the legal instructions on any criminal case? Not really. It would be a legal instruction absolutely and facially devoid of logic. Without such legal instructions, will jury nullification still occur? Pretty clearly, the answer is yes.

And to get back to the OP topic a bit closer to the bone: is merely talking about jury nullification in front of prospective jurors REALLY subject to valid criminal charges of "jury tampering?" No.

Here's some irony for you. If those charges got lodged and the "defendant" got a jury trial, the jury would necessarily hear a SHIT LOAD about "jury nullification" the very topic of the speech the defendant is accused of using to engage in this mysterious "tampering." If the prosecutor could "prove" those charges, the jury could then acquit the defendant all the same -- via jury nullification.

I am willing to bet that if the case goes to trial the court will rule that the defense cannot talk about what jury nullification at all.

My bet that even if the defense was allowed to mention jury nullification anytime it wanted juries would still routine convict people. The government is afraid of nullification not because it will be misused, but because it takes away their power.

 

[Liability]

Of course there is a method in how it works. It has existed for hundreds of years and, despite the effort of prosecutors and courts to deny it, has a long history.

The very first jury trial held by the Supreme Court of the United States not only admitted the possibility of jury nullification, an instruction was issued that embraced the possibility without causing any serious breaches of legal decorum. It simply requires an admission of the real power of juries.

Jurors' Handbook: Citizens Guide to Jury Duty and Jury Nullification

The judge should determine if the law applies in the way it is being used by a prosecutor. If the judge refuses to do that, who should?

It is a self-refuting legal instruction. And it is not the law of this land.

When juries do it (and nobody can really stop them if they are of a mind TO do it), it will never be the product of a legal instruction given to them by a judge.

No. You are mistaken. Is there such a thing as jury nullification? No doubt about it. Can it be charged to a jury as a matter of the legal instructions on any criminal case? Not really. It would be a legal instruction absolutely and facially devoid of logic. Without such legal instructions, will jury nullification still occur? Pretty clearly, the answer is yes.

And to get back to the OP topic a bit closer to the bone: is merely talking about jury nullification in front of prospective jurors REALLY subject to valid criminal charges of "jury tampering?" No.

Here's some irony for you. If those charges got lodged and the "defendant" got a jury trial, the jury would necessarily hear a SHIT LOAD about "jury nullification" the very topic of the speech the defendant is accused of using to engage in this mysterious "tampering." If the prosecutor could "prove" those charges, the jury could then acquit the defendant all the same -- via jury nullification.

I am willing to bet that if the case goes to trial the court will rule that the defense cannot talk about what jury nullification at all.

My bet that even if the defense was allowed to mention jury nullification anytime it wanted juries would still routine convict people. The government is afraid of nullification not because it will be misused, but because it takes away their power.

The charge is jury tampering for the "conduct" or the "behavior" of discussing -- jury nullification.

How could the case EVER go to trial without the EVIDENCE thus consisting of that VERY speech? The CENTERPIECE of the CASE itself would be a discussion of how talking about "jury nullification" could constitute "jury tampering." How could the jury decide the case unless they heard WHAT IT WAS that the defendant said that allegedly constitutes "jury tampering?"

No.

If the case went to trial before a jury, the jury would hear a SHIT LOAD about jury nullification. No way around it.

 

[Oddball]

The charge is jury tampering for the "conduct" or the "behavior" of discussing -- jury nullification.

How could the case EVER go to trial without the EVIDENCE thus consisting of that VERY speech? The CENTERPIECE of the CASE itself would be a discussion of how talking about "jury nullification" could constitute "jury tampering." How could the jury decide the case unless they heard WHAT IT WAS that the defendant said that allegedly constitutes "jury tampering?"

No.

If the case went to trial before a jury, the jury would hear a SHIT LOAD about jury nullification. No way around it.

Which makes it clear that the current threatened legal action is pure harassment.

 

[Liability]

The charge is jury tampering for the "conduct" or the "behavior" of discussing -- jury nullification.

How could the case EVER go to trial without the EVIDENCE thus consisting of that VERY speech? The CENTERPIECE of the CASE itself would be a discussion of how talking about "jury nullification" could constitute "jury tampering." How could the jury decide the case unless they heard WHAT IT WAS that the defendant said that allegedly constitutes "jury tampering?"

No.

If the case went to trial before a jury, the jury would hear a SHIT LOAD about jury nullification. No way around it.

Which makes it clear that the current threatened legal action is pure harassment.

If they have made any such "threat," I'd have to agree with you. For I cannot imagine anybody serving as a prosecutor who happens to be upset that some guy is spouting information about the topic of "jury nullification" would want to take THIS route to sanctioning the guy. It's a self-defeating tactic.

If they made the initial mistake of even threatening a criminal prosecution along these lines, my hunch is that they will abandon ship on it, pronto. It's a stupid move.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is a self-refuting legal instruction. And it is not the law of this land.

When juries do it (and nobody can really stop them if they are of a mind TO do it), it will never be the product of a legal instruction given to them by a judge.

No. You are mistaken. Is there such a thing as jury nullification? No doubt about it. Can it be charged to a jury as a matter of the legal instructions on any criminal case? Not really. It would be a legal instruction absolutely and facially devoid of logic. Without such legal instructions, will jury nullification still occur? Pretty clearly, the answer is yes.

And to get back to the OP topic a bit closer to the bone: is merely talking about jury nullification in front of prospective jurors REALLY subject to valid criminal charges of "jury tampering?" No.

Here's some irony for you. If those charges got lodged and the "defendant" got a jury trial, the jury would necessarily hear a SHIT LOAD about "jury nullification" the very topic of the speech the defendant is accused of using to engage in this mysterious "tampering." If the prosecutor could "prove" those charges, the jury could then acquit the defendant all the same -- via jury nullification.

I am willing to bet that if the case goes to trial the court will rule that the defense cannot talk about what jury nullification at all.

My bet that even if the defense was allowed to mention jury nullification anytime it wanted juries would still routine convict people. The government is afraid of nullification not because it will be misused, but because it takes away their power.

The charge is jury tampering for the "conduct" or the "behavior" of discussing -- jury nullification.

How could the case EVER go to trial without the EVIDENCE thus consisting of that VERY speech? The CENTERPIECE of the CASE itself would be a discussion of how talking about "jury nullification" could constitute "jury tampering." How could the jury decide the case unless they heard WHAT IT WAS that the defendant said that allegedly constitutes "jury tampering?"

No.

If the case went to trial before a jury, the jury would hear a SHIT LOAD about jury nullification. No way around it.

Not sure, but I can guarantee that the prosecution will be trying to keep the defense from using it, and the judge will do every bit of legal gymnastics he can to help them do so.