Jury nullification triumph!

[William Joyce]

I am ambivalent about the legitimacy of "jury nullification". I do agree that it's somewhat at odds with the rule of law. But the problem is...

how are you going to catch it?

prosecute the jurors who nullify?

how will you know that's what they did?

and under what standard?

and what if... those jurors nullify?

Truthfully, legally, there is no law against jury nullification. The only "law" involved is the plain power of the court, which is a form of law, but the only punishment available is contempt, and that, as any lawyer knows, is not the neatest and cleanest.

Ah, to be a law professor...

 

[TheBrain]

I am ambivalent about the legitimacy of "jury nullification". I do agree that it's somewhat at odds with the rule of law. But the problem is...

how are you going to catch it?

prosecute the jurors who nullify?

how will you know that's what they did?

and under what standard?

and what if... those jurors nullify?

Truthfully, legally, there is no law against jury nullification. The only "law" involved is the plain power of the court, which is a form of law, but the only punishment available is contempt, and that, as any lawyer knows, is not the neatest and cleanest.

Ah, to be a law professor...

I'm with you, ambivalent, certainly I see times when I myself would vote to let someone go knowing they were guilty, but overall ........ Luckily the fact that a majority of any jury would have to be on the same page limits the actual occurrences of jury nullification anyway.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

They did determine that. They then decided that what he did was not actually a crime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Are you saying DAs never get up during closing arguments and tell people that the law is perfectly clear?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

that is a lie. jury nullification is NOT any part of having a jury. if the judge gives an instruction on the law, you have to follow it. the FACTS are the sole province of the jury.

this isn't about football. grow up. you sit on a jury, you are charged to follow the law. if the law is wrong or the judge is wrong, it will be fixed on appeal.

i can see jury nullification is the VERY VERY rare case, but not like the loons talk about it.

How many times do we have to go through this? You are a fucking lawyer, you know as well as I do that jury nullification is part of why we have a jury. The fact that lawyers and judges want to deny this simple fact is proof that we need it now more than ever.

 

[TheBrain]

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.

Are you saying DAs never get up during closing arguments and tell people that the law is perfectly clear?

No, I believe she's saying that DAs don't instruct juries. Judges to. Now certainly a DA will often in their closing arguments remind a jury of their duty and if they have a case where they think jury nullification might come into play they will remind a jury that they are not supposed to do that, but as for instructions, no they don't instruct.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If a charged suspect has made it to the jury portion of the process, then the question of whether whatever was done was enough to warrant a charge has already been met. That is what prosecuting attorneys do, they decide does the behavior warrant a criminal charge. Then the jury decides if the person charged in fact committed the crime. Juries are NOT supposed to be deciders of what constitutes a crime, except in very rare circumstances spelled out by law ( IE self defense versus murder or things like that.)

As Jillian says, on occasion jury nullification is a useful tool, but as a rule it has no place in the jury room.

The decision on whether it warrants a charge is made by the police officer that responds to the call, no the court system. That is illustrated here by the fact that the arresting officer got on the stand and contradicted the testimony of everyone at the scene.

Prosecutors then decide if the evidence warrants a trial, quite often without ever talking to anyone including arresting officer. They go solely by the police reports. This particular incident was obviously written up as a domestic assault. In some states no one has any discretion at all. California requires that someone be arrested every single time the police are called for any domestic violence complaint.

Juries actually should be judging the law, and are perfectly capable of doing so. People are not stupid, and can make informed decisions when presented with facts. Juries used to be expected to interpret the law, but the lawyers got to thinking that people are not qualified to do that unless they have 4 years of college, 4 years of law school, and have passed a bar exam. All that education does is make lawyers arrogant, it does not give them any special insight in judging whether something is right or wrong.

The facts of this case, as presented in the blog I quoted, did not warrant a conviction. Apparently the jury agreed with me, and that is the end of the story, even if it was nullification. Lawyers and judges may not like it, but nullification is legal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Are you saying DAs never get up during closing arguments and tell people that the law is perfectly clear?

No, I believe she's saying that DAs don't instruct juries. Judges to. Now certainly a DA will often in their closing arguments remind a jury of their duty and if they have a case where they think jury nullification might come into play they will remind a jury that they are not supposed to do that, but as for instructions, no they don't instruct.

Which is exactly what the prosecutor did.

In his summation, the prosecutor told us that if we believed he had kicked her — which, he argued, couldn’t be disputed — then we had no choice. The law was clear. It was our duty to find him guilty of battery.

Jillian is vehement about jury nullification, and often sees facts in a way that make her believe that people are misstating the facts. The guy never claimed the prosecutor instructed anyone on the law, he just summed up the DAs summation of the case. She wants everyone to believe that, because prosecutors never do one thing, that this must all be a lie.

I am challenging her logic, or lack thereof.

 

[TheBrain]

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.

If a charged suspect has made it to the jury portion of the process, then the question of whether whatever was done was enough to warrant a charge has already been met. That is what prosecuting attorneys do, they decide does the behavior warrant a criminal charge. Then the jury decides if the person charged in fact committed the crime. Juries are NOT supposed to be deciders of what constitutes a crime, except in very rare circumstances spelled out by law ( IE self defense versus murder or things like that.)

As Jillian says, on occasion jury nullification is a useful tool, but as a rule it has no place in the jury room.

The decision on whether it warrants a charge is made by the police officer that responds to the call, no the court system. That is illustrated here by the fact that the arresting officer got on the stand and contradicted the testimony of everyone at the scene.

Prosecutors then decide if the evidence warrants a trial, quite often without ever talking to anyone including arresting officer. They go solely by the police reports. This particular incident was obviously written up as a domestic assault. In some states no one has any discretion at all. California requires that someone be arrested every single time the police are called for any domestic violence complaint.

Juries actually should be judging the law, and are perfectly capable of doing so. People are not stupid, and can make informed decisions when presented with facts. Juries used to be expected to interpret the law, but the lawyers got to thinking that people are not qualified to do that unless they have 4 years of college, 4 years of law school, and have passed a bar exam. All that education does is make lawyers arrogant, it does not give them any special insight in judging whether something is right or wrong.

The facts of this case, as presented in the blog I quoted, did not warrant a conviction. Apparently the jury agreed with me, and that is the end of the story, even if it was nullification. Lawyers and judges may not like it, but nullification is legal.

That is absolutely incorrect. LEOs can not charge anyone with anything. The prosecuting attorneys office is the ONLY entity which can do that.

 

[George Costanza]

The lone holdout was a man in his forties, a mechanical engineer. “Didn’t you hear what the D.A. told us?” he said plaintively. “Even if we wanted to, we don’t have the right to ignore the law.”

He was, of course, totally correct. QW, you should know better than to put up a thread like this.

 

[George Costanza]

Are you saying DAs never get up during closing arguments and tell people that the law is perfectly clear?

No, I believe she's saying that DAs don't instruct juries. Judges to. Now certainly a DA will often in their closing arguments remind a jury of their duty and if they have a case where they think jury nullification might come into play they will remind a jury that they are not supposed to do that, but as for instructions, no they don't instruct.

Which is exactly what the prosecutor did.

In his summation, the prosecutor told us that if we believed he had kicked her — which, he argued, couldn’t be disputed — then we had no choice. The law was clear. It was our duty to find him guilty of battery.

Jillian is vehement about jury nullification, and often sees facts in a way that make her believe that people are misstating the facts. The guy never claimed the prosecutor instructed anyone on the law, he just summed up the DAs summation of the case. She wants everyone to believe that, because prosecutors never do one thing, that this must all be a lie.

I am challenging her logic, or lack thereof.

It has nothing to do with what the DA said or didn't say. Only judges instruct juries as to the law. And one of the standard instruction that is given in ALL criminal trials in ALL of the states, is that the jury must follow the law, without regard for sympathy or passion for EITHER side. That means: jury nullification is ILLEGAL.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The lone holdout was a man in his forties, a mechanical engineer. “Didn’t you hear what the D.A. told us?” he said plaintively. “Even if we wanted to, we don’t have the right to ignore the law.”

He was, of course, totally correct. QW, you should know better than to put up a thread like this.

Yet they let the guy go, and no one got into trouble for it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I believe she's saying that DAs don't instruct juries. Judges to. Now certainly a DA will often in their closing arguments remind a jury of their duty and if they have a case where they think jury nullification might come into play they will remind a jury that they are not supposed to do that, but as for instructions, no they don't instruct.

Which is exactly what the prosecutor did.

In his summation, the prosecutor told us that if we believed he had kicked her — which, he argued, couldn’t be disputed — then we had no choice. The law was clear. It was our duty to find him guilty of battery.

Jillian is vehement about jury nullification, and often sees facts in a way that make her believe that people are misstating the facts. The guy never claimed the prosecutor instructed anyone on the law, he just summed up the DAs summation of the case. She wants everyone to believe that, because prosecutors never do one thing, that this must all be a lie.

I am challenging her logic, or lack thereof.

It has nothing to do with what the DA said or didn't say. Only judges instruct juries as to the law. And one of the standard instruction that is given in ALL criminal trials in ALL of the states, is that the jury must follow the law, without regard for sympathy or passion for EITHER side. That means: jury nullification is ILLEGAL.

It is not illegal. It just is frowned upon, and you are not permitted to talk about it during deliberations.

 

[George Costanza]

Which is exactly what the prosecutor did.

Jillian is vehement about jury nullification, and often sees facts in a way that make her believe that people are misstating the facts. The guy never claimed the prosecutor instructed anyone on the law, he just summed up the DAs summation of the case. She wants everyone to believe that, because prosecutors never do one thing, that this must all be a lie.

I am challenging her logic, or lack thereof.

It has nothing to do with what the DA said or didn't say. Only judges instruct juries as to the law. And one of the standard instruction that is given in ALL criminal trials in ALL of the states, is that the jury must follow the law, without regard for sympathy or passion for EITHER side. That means: jury nullification is ILLEGAL.

It is not illegal. It just is frowned upon, and you are not permitted to talk about it during deliberations.

It is not illegal in the sense that you are never going to find a statute saying they can't do it. But it is violative of jury instructions. And, if it is discovered, it is punishable by contempt of court.

 

[liebuster]

How many of you actually read the link? Actually seems like a case of where the women is pissed off and being a total bitch and the guy pushed her with his foot and then gets charges with battery. Not exactly a wife beater if you ask me.

They way I see it, is if a jury of your peers deems the "crime" to be insignificant enough to warrant letting you go the so be it.

This PC, zero tolerance bullshit has to have a "check" somewhere.

 

[editec]

Seems to me that when a judge tells a jury that they have to find one way or the other in a case, that judge is dead wrong.

If one thinks that the juries don't get to decide, then why bother with trail by your peers?

The arrogance of the legal profession is most obvious in cases where the judge attempts to cow the jury to decide guilt or innocence based on HIS definition of what they are ALLOWED to decide upon.

He'll tell them their only choice is to decide if the person did what the state charged the defendant with.

But the jury might elected to decide not that issue, but whether or not they think what the person charged with actually did anything WRONG.

You know where I'm voting on this matter.

The judge is cordially invited to go fuck himself.

Juries are not slaves to the law.

Some citizens feel they are only responsible for bringing in a JUST verdict.

 

[BennettJ]

I am not 100% sure on this, but is this the same policy that NORML had on their site a week ago? Where if a Jury decides that they disagree with the law that the defendant violated they can let him/her go free with no charges? If so my upcoming court date may go quite well if I get an educated group of peers (haha, like that will happen)

 

[Liability]

Insufficient information.

The law does not condone jury nullification, but jurys still do it.

Generally speaking, it is resorted to when the prosecution itself (for whatever reason) is unjust even if the defendant is technically guilty of the crime. The basis for saying THIS particular case was an unjust prosecution is unclear.

If he kicked her but caused no injury -- in a state where the crime being prosecuted requires "injury" as an ELEMENT of that crime -- then it was perfectly proper to acquit the guy of that charge. But, here's the thing. If that's what happened, then it wasn't jury nullification. It was a failure of proof.

If the kick did cause "injury" however that term is defined in that State, and the jury recognized THAT fact, then their resort to "jury nullification" is itself an injustice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It has nothing to do with what the DA said or didn't say. Only judges instruct juries as to the law. And one of the standard instruction that is given in ALL criminal trials in ALL of the states, is that the jury must follow the law, without regard for sympathy or passion for EITHER side. That means: jury nullification is ILLEGAL.

It is not illegal. It just is frowned upon, and you are not permitted to talk about it during deliberations.

It is not illegal in the sense that you are never going to find a statute saying they can't do it. But it is violative of jury instructions. And, if it is discovered, it is punishable by contempt of court.

I hold nothing but contempt for anyone that tells me I am not allowed to think for myself.

 

[TheBrain]

How many of you actually read the link? Actually seems like a case of where the women is pissed off and being a total bitch and the guy pushed her with his foot and then gets charges with battery. Not exactly a wife beater if you ask me.

They way I see it, is if a jury of your peers deems the "crime" to be insignificant enough to warrant letting you go the so be it.

This PC, zero tolerance bullshit has to have a "check" somewhere.

A Grand Jury decides if the crime is significant enough to warrant a charge, not the trial jury. That is the way our legal system is set up. The only issues before a trial jury are

1) Is the defendant guilty of the crime as charged
2) If so what is the best punishment

In this case they could have found the guy guilty of simple assault recommended probation, and got the same result without skirting the law. THAT is within their authority without risking contempt of court for jury nullification.