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.
The first thing I did was ask for a show of hands from everyone who believed the man had kicked her. All twelve of us raised our hands. Okay, it was unanimous. Then, following standard procedure, I passed around sheets of paper and asked everyone to write down Guilty or Not Guilty, and pass the sheets back to me. The count was 11 to 1. Not Guilty. It was a glorious moment. I couldnt have been prouder of my fellow jurors. Despite what the prosecutor told us about doing our duty, and despite the law being crystal clear in this matter, we had decided to do the right thing, the fair thing. We had decided that this guy shouldnt be convicted.
Well, at least eleven of us had decided that. The lone holdout was a man in his forties, a mechanical engineer. Didnt you hear what the D.A. told us? he said plaintively. Even if we wanted to, we dont have the right to ignore the law. When one of the jurors asked if he agreed with the way the law was written, he was stunned. It doesnt matter if I agree or not, he said. The law is the law.
Wrong. We told him it wasnt our job to enforce the law. That was their job. Our job was to do the right thing. And if the County of Los Angeles didnt trust a jury to reach the right and proper decision, then they shouldnt have given us that authority.
If he thought it was a fair decision, then why did his office prosecute this guy in the first place? The answer is that the American legal system has become an industry unto itself, one that supplies lucrative jobs to judges and private attorneys, and decent jobs to public defenders, bailiffs, prison guards, probation officers, expert witnesses, et al. While the System clearly benefits those with the jobs, it clearly hurts people who get stuck with convictions that are meted out not from of a sense of justice, but for administrative reasons. These convictions follow them the rest of their lives, and prevent them from even getting jobs because they now have criminal records. We did our small part to fix that.
I'm not too impressed by the guy who wrote the piece.
The duty of the jurors is to determine whether the person is guilty or innocent of the charges. That's it. They aren't supposed to say, "Yeah, he did it but it wasn't so bad" or "yeah he did it but she's an ugly whore".
Shame on them.
Jury nullification is a time honored tradition.
These jurors should be applauded for their intelligence and their courage.
Jury nullification is a time honored tradition.
These jurors should be applauded for their intelligence and their courage.
If unrepentent domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers and his wife Bernie Dohrn can teach law, why not substitute Shria law for the Constitution? Who would notice?
Forget to take your meds?? 
Jury nullification is a time honored tradition.
These jurors should be applauded for their intelligence and their courage.
If unrepentent domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers and his wife Bernie Dohrn can teach law, why not substitute Shria law for the Constitution? Who would notice?
Sunni is a fan of sharia.
I'm not too impressed by the guy who wrote the piece.
The duty of the jurors is to determine whether the person is guilty or innocent of the charges. That's it. They aren't supposed to say, "Yeah, he did it but it wasn't so bad" or "yeah he did it but she's an ugly whore".
Shame on them.
I'm not too impressed by the guy who wrote the piece.
The duty of the jurors is to determine whether the person is guilty or innocent of the charges. That's it. They aren't supposed to say, "Yeah, he did it but it wasn't so bad" or "yeah he did it but she's an ugly whore".
Shame on them.
if he hadn't assaulted his wife, then the jury would not have had to find him guilty under the law. if they felt they had to engage in jury nullificaiton then his behavior was domestic violence and they let a batterer free.... which means the battering will increase in frequency and intensity.
if true, they violated their oath as jurors and should be held in contempt.
that said, i think it's a lie... the prosecutor doesn't instruct on the law except at the grand jury stage. at the trial stage, only a judge can instruct on the law.
Prosecutors can make closing arguments though. Probably what he was referring to.
And Jury nullification is an important part of having a Jury. We are supposed to have Courts of Justice. Sometimes the just thing is to find someone not guilty even if the techincal aspect of the law might be construed otherwise. The only people who were actually present at the time the crime accord testified that there was nothing but slight kick to the backside. Does anyone honestly think that's what the statute was created for? I've hit my friends playing around before. Am I guilty of assault? Do you think the law was intended for that? Should we arrest football players because they smack their teamates on the butt? Seriously.
The law was meant punish people who are committing serious acts of violence. The Jury decided that this wasn't a serious act. Justice was served.
Prosecutors can make closing arguments though. Probably what he was referring to.
And Jury nullification is an important part of having a Jury. We are supposed to have Courts of Justice. Sometimes the just thing is to find someone not guilty even if the techincal aspect of the law might be construed otherwise. The only people who were actually present at the time the crime accord testified that there was nothing but slight kick to the backside. Does anyone honestly think that's what the statute was created for? I've hit my friends playing around before. Am I guilty of assault? Do you think the law was intended for that? Should we arrest football players because they smack their teamates on the butt? Seriously.
The law was meant punish people who are committing serious acts of violence. The Jury decided that this wasn't a serious act. Justice was served.
