Jury Nullification goes to Trial?

[MikeK]

The problem with your scenario is that someone could apply the same line of reasoning in a murder trial where they believed that even though the murder happened it was justified in that juror's mind.

I believe many if not most people can think of circumstances that would justify murder. I personally believe forcible rape is one such circumstance. If someone raped one of my girls and I could get my hands on him before the police did he would be dead or close to it. And if I were a juror there is no way I would find a father or a husband on trial for such a circumstance guilty of murder.

 

[Intense]

The problem with your scenario is that someone could apply the same line of reasoning in a murder trial where they believed that even though the murder happened it was justified in that juror's mind.

I believe many if not most people can think of circumstances that would justify murder. I personally believe forcible rape is one such circumstance. If someone raped one of my girls and I could get my hands on him before the police did he would be dead or close to it. And if I were a juror there is no way I would find a father or a husband on trial for such a circumstance guilty of murder.

If you walked in on the act, the circumstances would be different than you hunting the Rapists down.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem with your scenario is that someone could apply the same line of reasoning in a murder trial where they believed that even though the murder happened it was justified in that juror's mind.

Believe it or not, some murders are justified, and even the government recognizes that fact.

Justifiable homicide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Although they could, the point of nullification is that the average person in the jury is smart enough to know that the laws against murder are just.

But if, for whatever reason, they believe the application of that law is unjust....?

That's when you start getting into the jurors' biases influencing the process.

As opposed to the bias of the prosecutors, or the judges? Why is bias a bad thing if it allows people who are being oppressed to walk free? If you were on a jury where a person was charged with treason for standing up in public and saying the US was wrong to invade Iraq would you find him guilty simply because the judge told you that treason is speaking out against government policies in time of war? Would you allow your personal bias about free speech and the right of dissent to influence your vote?

Do juries sometimes allow their bias to set a man who should be in prison free? Yes, but it happens even less than the cases where juries actually get their backs up and ignore a judges interpretation of the law to force them to convict a person that is not guilty of a crime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it isn't. But you can substitute in another crime that you feel everyone agrees should be a crime. The point being, there is no hard and fast agreement on anything.

What is the point of jury nullification, anyway. It simply results in a hung jury, a mistrial, and a retrying of the case.

It would make much more sense for this guy to tell people that they should be honest about what they do and do not consider crimes when they are called for jury duty.

Jury nullification is the entire jury deciding that the law as applied to the case before them is wrong, and they find the accused not guilty. Anything less than that is not nullification, which is why I do not understand the strong bias against it in the courts. Those cases that everyone likes to cite to prove that nullification is wrong where a jury just lets a man guilty of murder walk free are so rare that they are not worth rebutting.

I rarely end up on a jury because, when I am asked if I can obey the judges instructions I always answer honestly that it would depend on the instruction. I am arrogant, smarter than average, and a person who believes in doing what I believe is right. If I think a person is guilty I am more than willing to find him guilty, but if I think the law is wrong, which some are, or being misused, I will refuse to find the accused guilty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Has that ever happened?

Think Jack Kevorkian, that is the most recent example I can think of of jury nullification. The law said he committed multiple murders, and he was actually found not guilty more than once.

 

[Oddball]

Has that ever happened?

Sure it has.

And even in the case of hung juries, that doesn't automatically mean a re-trial.

If juries hang or nullify enough verdicts in cases concerning bad law (think prohibition), then prosecutors will think twice about wasting time and resources on cases where they're not likely to get a conviction.

 

[Ravi]

Has that ever happened?

Think Jack Kevorkian, that is the most recent example I can think of of jury nullification. The law said he committed multiple murders, and he was actually found not guilty more than once.

Being found not guilty isn't the same as jury nullification.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Has that ever happened?

Think Jack Kevorkian, that is the most recent example I can think of of jury nullification. The law said he committed multiple murders, and he was actually found not guilty more than once.

Being found not guilty isn't the same as jury nullification.

Wow.

The guy not only killed people, he video taped it and bragged about it. The law at the time was crystal clear, giving a person drugs that caused death was murder, even if the person receiving the drugs wanted them. If you do not define this as jury nullification I have no idea what you think nullification actually is.

 

[Ravi]

Think Jack Kevorkian, that is the most recent example I can think of of jury nullification. The law said he committed multiple murders, and he was actually found not guilty more than once.

Being found not guilty isn't the same as jury nullification.

Wow.

The guy not only killed people, he video taped it and bragged about it. The law at the time was crystal clear, giving a person drugs that caused death was murder, even if the person receiving the drugs wanted them. If you do not define this as jury nullification I have no idea what you think nullification actually is.

Did they not return a verdict of not guilty? That isn't quite the same thing. Plus, he was eventually convicted and went to prison, IIRC.

 

[Ravi]

Okay, maybe that was the reason they gave:

There are many examples of juries interposing their own moral or political judgment in defiance of a law. In the mid 1800s, juries in Northern states practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Later, during prohibition in the 1930s, many juries acquitted individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws. In the high profile case of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the jury acquitted Dr. Kevorkian despite the uncontroverted evidence that Kevorkian had violated Michigan law by helping the deceased commit suicide.
But jury nullification has its dangers as well. For example, in the 1950s and 1960s some all-white southern juries refused to convict white supremacists for killing black individuals or civil rights workers despite evidence of the defendants’ guilt.

Jury Nullification FAQ

The second examples clearly show a bad outcome from jury nullification.

And again, he was eventually convicted of murder, no?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Think of the Emmett Till murder case. Yeah, jury nullfication works, just not in the cause of justice every time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Being found not guilty isn't the same as jury nullification.

Wow.

The guy not only killed people, he video taped it and bragged about it. The law at the time was crystal clear, giving a person drugs that caused death was murder, even if the person receiving the drugs wanted them. If you do not define this as jury nullification I have no idea what you think nullification actually is.

Did they not return a verdict of not guilty? That isn't quite the same thing. Plus, he was eventually convicted and went to prison, IIRC.

They return a verdict of not guilty more than once. He was tried in numerous jurisdictions for more than one murder before a conviction was obtained.

Again, what do you think jury nullification is?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay, maybe that was the reason they gave:

There are many examples of juries interposing their own moral or political judgment in defiance of a law. In the mid 1800s, juries in Northern states practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Later, during prohibition in the 1930s, many juries acquitted individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws. In the high profile case of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the jury acquitted Dr. Kevorkian despite the uncontroverted evidence that Kevorkian had violated Michigan law by helping the deceased commit suicide.
But jury nullification has its dangers as well. For example, in the 1950s and 1960s some all-white southern juries refused to convict white supremacists for killing black individuals or civil rights workers despite evidence of the defendants’ guilt.

Jury Nullification FAQ

The second examples clearly show a bad outcome from jury nullification.

And again, he was eventually convicted of murder, no?

He was eventually convicted because he kept committing murders. give the government enough chances to convict you and they will be able to convict you of anything, even if you are actually innocent, never mind actually breaking the law.

 

[George Costanza]

I am arrogant, smarter than average, and a person who believes in doing what I believe is right.

George W. Bush? Is that you?

Oh, sorry . . . I didn't see the part about being smarter than average. Never mind.

 

[JakeStarkey]

QWB is arrogant and most often cannot refute his opponents' arguments.

 

[Liability]

Tone the snark down, lads.

I have disagreed from time to time with Quantum. He may be stubborn (am I wrong in seeing most of us as stubborn to some degree?), but he's not irrational.

And by the way, the Costanza crack at President Bush's expense is laughable. I grant you that President Bush spoke, informally at least, in a poor manner too often. But to jump from that observation to the contention that he wasn't "smart" is facially ridiculous.

There is much better evidence to support the proposition that President Bush is smart than there is for the oft-repeated claim that President Obama is.

 

[Ravi]

Think of the Emmett Till murder case. Yeah, jury nullfication works, just not in the cause of justice every time.

And therein lies the problem.

 

[Liability]

Think of the Emmett Till murder case. Yeah, jury nullfication works, just not in the cause of justice every time.

And therein lies the problem.

It's not every day I agree -- even in some small measure -- with Ravi. In fact, I may have a fever.

But yes.

If jury nullification is the power of a jury (or a juror) to ignore the rule of law and to substitute his own sentiments, in the place of the law, then that power is indeed very potent. GC posted three cases yesterday noting that Courts acknowledge that this jury power exists and that it exists for a reason. But it comes with logical problems and costs.

And as a factual matter, if it is occasionally used to let a man go free when he has engaged in something which is technically criminal (like shooting the bastard who raped his daughter under circumstances where it isn't legally justified but is instead pure vigilantism) it can also be used to let a guilty man go free for nefarious reasons.

It can be a dangerous two-edged sword.

 

[Oddball]

Think of the Emmett Till murder case. Yeah, jury nullfication works, just not in the cause of justice every time.

And therein lies the problem.

Yet sending someone to prison who has "too much" pot, and nobody to rat out, is justice?

And since when has perfection ever been an option?