Jury nullification wins over dumb law

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe of more people stood up and refused to on things like this we could get the government to start concentrating on the real problems.

A funny thing happened on the way to a trial in Missoula County District Court last week. Jurors – well, potential jurors – staged a revolt.
They took the law into their own hands, as it were, and made it clear they weren’t about to convict anybody for having a couple of buds of marijuana. Never mind that the defendant in question also faced a felony charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.
The tiny amount of marijuana police found while searching Touray Cornell’s home on April 23 became a huge issue for some members of the jury panel.
No, they said, one after the other. No way would they convict somebody for having a 16th of an ounce.
In fact, one juror wondered why the county was wasting time and money prosecuting the case at all, said a flummoxed Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul.

Missoula District Court: Jury pool in marijuana case stages ?mutiny?

A step in the right direction, even if the guy who benefited was the least deserving.

 

[George Costanza]

Maybe of more people stood up and refused to on things like this we could get the government to start concentrating on the real problems.

A funny thing happened on the way to a trial in Missoula County District Court last week. Jurors – well, potential jurors – staged a revolt.
They took the law into their own hands, as it were, and made it clear they weren’t about to convict anybody for having a couple of buds of marijuana. Never mind that the defendant in question also faced a felony charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.
The tiny amount of marijuana police found while searching Touray Cornell’s home on April 23 became a huge issue for some members of the jury panel.
No, they said, one after the other. No way would they convict somebody for having a 16th of an ounce.
In fact, one juror wondered why the county was wasting time and money prosecuting the case at all, said a flummoxed Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul.

Missoula District Court: Jury pool in marijuana case stages ?mutiny?

A step in the right direction, even if the guy who benefited was the least deserving.

I agree insofar as the stupidity of marijuana laws. But I don't recommend trying something like that the next time you are called for jury duty.

How far do you think you would get if you "made it clear" that you simply were not going to sit on a jury? No reason - you just won't sit. What do you think would happen to you? Hint: Sanctions. So how does giving a reason ("I think the marijuana laws are stupid") make it any different? It doesn't.

"Jury nullification" is a popular myth that comes down to us from a misunderstanding of the purpose of juries in the first place. In real life, it does not exist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They were asked if they would have a problem with convicting of possession if the accused had 1/16th of an ounce, not if they were willing to sit on a jury.

 

[Oddball]

Maybe of more people stood up and refused to on things like this we could get the government to start concentrating on the real problems.

A funny thing happened on the way to a trial in Missoula County District Court last week. Jurors – well, potential jurors – staged a revolt.
They took the law into their own hands, as it were, and made it clear they weren’t about to convict anybody for having a couple of buds of marijuana. Never mind that the defendant in question also faced a felony charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.
The tiny amount of marijuana police found while searching Touray Cornell’s home on April 23 became a huge issue for some members of the jury panel.
No, they said, one after the other. No way would they convict somebody for having a 16th of an ounce.
In fact, one juror wondered why the county was wasting time and money prosecuting the case at all, said a flummoxed Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul.

Missoula District Court: Jury pool in marijuana case stages ?mutiny?

A step in the right direction, even if the guy who benefited was the least deserving.

Before you ever step into a jury box, know all of your rights.

Fully Informed Jury Association

 

[Oddball]

Maybe of more people stood up and refused to on things like this we could get the government to start concentrating on the real problems.

A funny thing happened on the way to a trial in Missoula County District Court last week. Jurors – well, potential jurors – staged a revolt.
They took the law into their own hands, as it were, and made it clear they weren’t about to convict anybody for having a couple of buds of marijuana. Never mind that the defendant in question also faced a felony charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.
The tiny amount of marijuana police found while searching Touray Cornell’s home on April 23 became a huge issue for some members of the jury panel.
No, they said, one after the other. No way would they convict somebody for having a 16th of an ounce.
In fact, one juror wondered why the county was wasting time and money prosecuting the case at all, said a flummoxed Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul.

Missoula District Court: Jury pool in marijuana case stages ?mutiny?

A step in the right direction, even if the guy who benefited was the least deserving.

I agree insofar as the stupidity of marijuana laws. But I don't recommend trying something like that the next time you are called for jury duty.

How far do you think you would get if you "made it clear" that you simply were not going to sit on a jury? No reason - you just won't sit. What do you think would happen to you? Hint: Sanctions. So how does giving a reason ("I think the marijuana laws are stupid") make it any different? It doesn't.

"Jury nullification" is a popular myth that comes down to us from a misunderstanding of the purpose of juries in the first place. In real life, it does not exist.

Total crap.

I suggest you Google "Laura Kriho" and get your legal and historical facts straight.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe of more people stood up and refused to on things like this we could get the government to start concentrating on the real problems.




Missoula District Court: Jury pool in marijuana case stages ?mutiny?

A step in the right direction, even if the guy who benefited was the least deserving.

I agree insofar as the stupidity of marijuana laws. But I don't recommend trying something like that the next time you are called for jury duty.

How far do you think you would get if you "made it clear" that you simply were not going to sit on a jury? No reason - you just won't sit. What do you think would happen to you? Hint: Sanctions. So how does giving a reason ("I think the marijuana laws are stupid") make it any different? It doesn't.

"Jury nullification" is a popular myth that comes down to us from a misunderstanding of the purpose of juries in the first place. In real life, it does not exist.

Total crap.

I suggest you Google "Laura Kriho" and get your legal and historical facts straight.

I can understand why prosecutors, and even judges, are afraid of jury nullification, but I have never understood why defense attorneys are not advocating for it left and right. SCOTUS has affirmed the rights of juries to nullify at least three times, it is even written into the Constitutions of several states, and judges are required by law to instruct juries that they can ignore the law in both Maryland and Indiana. Yet we still have george insisting it never happens.

 

[George Costanza]

I agree insofar as the stupidity of marijuana laws. But I don't recommend trying something like that the next time you are called for jury duty.

How far do you think you would get if you "made it clear" that you simply were not going to sit on a jury? No reason - you just won't sit. What do you think would happen to you? Hint: Sanctions. So how does giving a reason ("I think the marijuana laws are stupid") make it any different? It doesn't.

"Jury nullification" is a popular myth that comes down to us from a misunderstanding of the purpose of juries in the first place. In real life, it does not exist.

Total crap.

I suggest you Google "Laura Kriho" and get your legal and historical facts straight.

I can understand why prosecutors, and even judges, are afraid of jury nullification, but I have never understood why defense attorneys are not advocating for it left and right. SCOTUS has affirmed the rights of juries to nullify at least three times, it is even written into the Constitutions of several states, and judges are required by law to instruct juries that they can ignore the law in both Maryland and Indiana. Yet we still have george insisting it never happens.

I think part of our problem here is that jury nullification is illegal in California, and that's where I hang my shingle. Read this:

Jury Nullification

So, my comments about JN are based entirely on my own, personal experience with it under California law. I had not realized that it is recognized in some other states.

 

[MikeK]

The most prominent example of jury nullification in recent memory occurred in the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

Anyone who is familiar with the facts in that case knows the material evidence leaves no doubt that Simpson was guilty. But he was pronounced not guilty by a predominately Black jury, apparently in response to tacit encouragement to do so by Simpson's lead counsel, Johnny Cochran.

George Costanza is quite correct in that declaring intention to ignore evidence and support a not guilty verdict will bring a contempt of court charge. But absent any such declaration a jury can issue a not guilty verdict in spite of irrefutable evidence of guilt and that verdict is final. That is the manifest reality of jury nullification, plain and simple. A jury verdict means The People have spoken.

Because the power of a jury to decide guilt or innocence effectively assigns the role of judge to the jury and reduces the judge to the role of referee, judges harbor a strong resentment for this ability to nullify. But because the power to nullify derives from the Magna Carta there is little more they can do about it other than issue admonitions and hope that jurors are intimidated by them.

Judges issue "charges" to jurors who are about to deliberate in a criminal trial. An effort is made to represent these "charges" as orders rather than what they really are, which is basic instructions and nothing more. Unfortunately too many jurors take these "charges" too seriously and are motivated to ignore their consciences.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Total crap.

I suggest you Google "Laura Kriho" and get your legal and historical facts straight.

I can understand why prosecutors, and even judges, are afraid of jury nullification, but I have never understood why defense attorneys are not advocating for it left and right. SCOTUS has affirmed the rights of juries to nullify at least three times, it is even written into the Constitutions of several states, and judges are required by law to instruct juries that they can ignore the law in both Maryland and Indiana. Yet we still have george insisting it never happens.

I think part of our problem here is that jury nullification is illegal in California, and that's where I hang my shingle. Read this:

Jury Nullification

So, my comments about JN are based entirely on my own, personal experience with it under California law. I had not realized that it is recognized in some other states.

So, if everyone on the jury spontaneously decided to vote their conscious and let a person who is obviously guilty go free by voting him not guilty the state could overturn the verdict and try him again? How do you explain OJ then?

They cannot make a jury voting its conscious illegal, even if they like the outcome better.

 

[jillian]

Maybe of more people stood up and refused to on things like this we could get the government to start concentrating on the real problems.

A funny thing happened on the way to a trial in Missoula County District Court last week. Jurors – well, potential jurors – staged a revolt.
They took the law into their own hands, as it were, and made it clear they weren’t about to convict anybody for having a couple of buds of marijuana. Never mind that the defendant in question also faced a felony charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.
The tiny amount of marijuana police found while searching Touray Cornell’s home on April 23 became a huge issue for some members of the jury panel.
No, they said, one after the other. No way would they convict somebody for having a 16th of an ounce.
In fact, one juror wondered why the county was wasting time and money prosecuting the case at all, said a flummoxed Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul.

Missoula District Court: Jury pool in marijuana case stages ?mutiny?

A step in the right direction, even if the guy who benefited was the least deserving.

I agree insofar as the stupidity of marijuana laws. But I don't recommend trying something like that the next time you are called for jury duty.

How far do you think you would get if you "made it clear" that you simply were not going to sit on a jury? No reason - you just won't sit. What do you think would happen to you? Hint: Sanctions. So how does giving a reason ("I think the marijuana laws are stupid") make it any different? It doesn't.

"Jury nullification" is a popular myth that comes down to us from a misunderstanding of the purpose of juries in the first place. In real life, it does not exist.

you're much more patient with that type of lunacy than i am.

i agree with you... the jury nullification ranters really have no clue about the role of a jury.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The most prominent example of jury nullification in recent memory occurred in the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

Anyone who is familiar with the facts in that case knows the material evidence leaves no doubt that Simpson was guilty. But he was pronounced not guilty by a predominately Black jury, apparently in response to tacit encouragement to do so by Simpson's lead counsel, Johnny Cochran.

George Costanza is quite correct in that declaring intention to ignore evidence and support a not guilty verdict will bring a contempt of court charge. But absent any such declaration a jury can issue a not guilty verdict in spite of irrefutable evidence of guilt and that verdict is final. That is the manifest reality of jury nullification, plain and simple. A jury verdict means The People have spoken.

Because the power of a jury to decide guilt or innocence effectively assigns the role of judge to the jury and reduces the judge to the role of referee, judges harbor a strong resentment for this ability to nullify. But because the power to nullify derives from the Magna Carta there is little more they can do about it other than issue admonitions and hope that jurors are intimidated by them.

Judges issue "charges" to jurors who are about to deliberate in a criminal trial. An effort is made to represent these "charges" as orders rather than what they really are, which is basic instructions and nothing more. Unfortunately too many jurors take these "charges" too seriously and are motivated to ignore their consciences.

Absolute bullshit. I watched almost all the OJ trial. He was found not guilty because4 the prosecution was totally incompetent. They allowed a known RACIST cop that had a personal history with OJ to be their star witness. They "found" more evidence days and weeks after the crime every time the evidence they had wasn't enough.

When the cops ILLEGALLY entered OJ's property the night of the murders they claimed they were there to ensure he was safe and alright, yet when they woke his daughter up and searched her house they were looking for shoes. WITHOUT a warrant.

The supposed blood stain on the car? Was so small as to have been invisible at night when the cops claimed they found it. His socks were supposedly full of blood, yet his white carpet in the room where they found the socks had NO BLOODSTAINS at all. And we are to believe he was smart enough to haul off all the evidence EXCEPT a pair of socks? Same socks, the medical lab admitted they sprayed his blood around the lab by accident when the socks were out and could have been contaminated.

An 18 year VETERAN of the police force a Detective that happened to be the racist cops partner "forgot" and carried OJ's blood to the crime scene and his home in his pocket.

Oj was found not guilty because the defense made idiots of the Prosecution and laid absolute doubt in the minds of the Jury.

 

[MikeK]

Absolute bullshit. I watched almost all the OJ trial. He was found not guilty because4 the prosecution was totally incompetent. They allowed a known RACIST cop that had a personal history with OJ to be their star witness. They "found" more evidence days and weeks after the crime every time the evidence they had wasn't enough.

When the cops ILLEGALLY entered OJ's property the night of the murders they claimed they were there to ensure he was safe and alright, yet when they woke his daughter up and searched her house they were looking for shoes. WITHOUT a warrant.

The supposed blood stain on the car? Was so small as to have been invisible at night when the cops claimed they found it. His socks were supposedly full of blood, yet his white carpet in the room where they found the socks had NO BLOODSTAINS at all. And we are to believe he was smart enough to haul off all the evidence EXCEPT a pair of socks? Same socks, the medical lab admitted they sprayed his blood around the lab by accident when the socks were out and could have been contaminated.

An 18 year VETERAN of the police force a Detective that happened to be the racist cops partner "forgot" and carried OJ's blood to the crime scene and his home in his pocket.

Oj was found not guilty because the defense made idiots of the Prosecution and laid absolute doubt in the minds of the Jury.

Your mindset is frozen on Detective Mark Fuhrman's tainted testimony. While you are correct in accepting that his testimony was dismissible the fact is material evidence always outweighs evidence testimony in a criminal trial and the material evidence against O.J. Simpson was irrefutable. The blood of his victims was literally on his hands.

The prosecutors were not incompetent. They had no way of knowing that one witness would be purged. Fuhrman's testimony occurred as a fluke and was simply disregarded. By no means was it the single factor that would have swayed an objective jury. The material evidence was condemning. There is no question in the minds of many legal experts I've read and heard from that the Simpson jury issued a nullified verdict.

You say you followed the trial closely. So ask yourself, if you had been on that jury would you say Simpson was innocent?

 

[MikeK]

you're much more patient with that type of lunacy than i am.

i agree with you... the jury nullification ranters really have no clue about the role of a jury.

Then how about explaining the role of a jury to the rest of us.

 

[MikeK]

[So, if everyone on the jury spontaneously decided to vote their conscious and let a person who is obviously guilty go free by voting him not guilty the state could overturn the verdict and try him again? How do you explain OJ then?

They cannot make a jury voting its conscious illegal, even if they like the outcome better.

In the same way as the USSC set an egregious precedent by appointing George W. Bush as President in 1999, and in the same way as the USSC effectively sabotaged the electoral process via the Citizens United ruling, the California Supreme Court has declared that the State and not the People are the final voice of Law. In doing so they have set the most basic principle of the Common Law back seven hundred years.

In effect the court has said citizen juries no longer have a functional purpose because if the State disagrees with a jury's verdict it can simply reverse it. And the most amazing thing about this latest step in the disassembling of our Constitutional System is how so many otherwise intelligent citizens quietly accept these outrageous declarations. If they see how easily they can get away with this sort of legalistic bloviation it won't surprise me if the Supreme Court next restores the Divine Right of Kings and assigns it to the President and all whom he appoints to exercise it.

Little by little . . .

 

[liebuster]

I though jury nullification is more of the jury judging the lawfulness and practicality of the law rather than the defendent. If a person is charges with a pety crime like not having enough 922R compliance parts on an imported firearm then the jury can basically say , "this law is complete horseshit and has nothing to do with public safety" and therefor "nullify" the charge.

As to the OJ simpson trial. How did the jury in that trial "nullify" murder???

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Absolute bullshit. I watched almost all the OJ trial. He was found not guilty because4 the prosecution was totally incompetent. They allowed a known RACIST cop that had a personal history with OJ to be their star witness. They "found" more evidence days and weeks after the crime every time the evidence they had wasn't enough.

When the cops ILLEGALLY entered OJ's property the night of the murders they claimed they were there to ensure he was safe and alright, yet when they woke his daughter up and searched her house they were looking for shoes. WITHOUT a warrant.

The supposed blood stain on the car? Was so small as to have been invisible at night when the cops claimed they found it. His socks were supposedly full of blood, yet his white carpet in the room where they found the socks had NO BLOODSTAINS at all. And we are to believe he was smart enough to haul off all the evidence EXCEPT a pair of socks? Same socks, the medical lab admitted they sprayed his blood around the lab by accident when the socks were out and could have been contaminated.

An 18 year VETERAN of the police force a Detective that happened to be the racist cops partner "forgot" and carried OJ's blood to the crime scene and his home in his pocket.

Oj was found not guilty because the defense made idiots of the Prosecution and laid absolute doubt in the minds of the Jury.

Your mindset is frozen on Detective Mark Fuhrman's tainted testimony. While you are correct in accepting that his testimony was dismissible the fact is material evidence always outweighs evidence testimony in a criminal trial and the material evidence against O.J. Simpson was irrefutable. The blood of his victims was literally on his hands.

The prosecutors were not incompetent. They had no way of knowing that one witness would be purged. Fuhrman's testimony occurred as a fluke and was simply disregarded. By no means was it the single factor that would have swayed an objective jury. The material evidence was condemning. There is no question in the minds of many legal experts I've read and heard from that the Simpson jury issued a nullified verdict.

You say you followed the trial closely. So ask yourself, if you had been on that jury would you say Simpson was innocent?

In order to convict a Juror must be sure BEYOND a Reasonable doubt. The defense created all kind of reasonable doubt. Doubt about the blood evidence, the lab was incompetent and tainted samples on several occasions. Doubt about the glove , Fuhrman supposedly found, You are aware that the claim is the glove must have slipped out of OJ's pocket or bag, right? Are you aware Fuhrman claimed to find the glove UNDER an air conditioning unit? Doubt about the motive of the TWO illegal searches the cops conducted with either no warrant ( the first) or when they outright lied to a judge for the second. Doubt about the blood evidence supposedly OJ's when Fuhrman's partner ADMITTED in court he carried a vial of OJ's blood to the crime scene. An 18 year veteran detective simply forgot he put a vial of OJ's blood in his pocket and then went to the crime scene where suddenly more evidence is discovered? More doubt about the glove when it did not fit. No weapon was discovered just a claim he bought knives. Doubt about the socks.

I would have had to vote not guilty.

 

[George Costanza]

George Costanza is quite correct in that declaring intention to ignore evidence and support a not guilty verdict will bring a contempt of court charge. But absent any such declaration a jury can issue a not guilty verdict in spite of irrefutable evidence of guilt and that verdict is final. That is the manifest reality of jury nullification, plain and simple. A jury verdict means The People have spoken.

You are correct in theory, Mike. A juror who honestly announces he does not agree with the law and will refuse to sit if chosen, is subject to contempt of court if he refuses to sit. And, a juror who dishonestly hides his disagreement with the law, gets seated, and then votes to acquit in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt, can get away with it IF all of the other 11 jurors feel the same way and IF no one rats him out to the judge during deliberations.

In point of fact, while this works in theory, it does not work in the real world. There is a jury instruction that is read to all juries that requires the jurors to immediately report any other juror who appears to be voting to acquit for improper or illegal reasons. And, believe me, the other jurors DO report such jurors .

Judges issue "charges" to jurors who are about to deliberate in a criminal trial. An effort is made to represent these "charges" as orders rather than what they really are, which is basic instructions and nothing more. Unfortunately too many jurors take these "charges" too seriously and are motivated to ignore their consciences.

You have this one just backwards. It is FORTUNATE that jurors take the charges seriously, and follow them. What would we have if they didn't? Anarchy. The function of juries is to decide the FACTS, not the law. It is the function of the JUDGE to decide the law, not the jury.

I am not going to say that jury nullification has never happened. It probably has. I know that I have tried close to 400 criminal jury trials and it has never happened in any of these trials. Think about it - in order for JN to happen, ALL TWELVE jurors have to lie on voir dire and then "vote their conscience" in the jury room. What does happen sometimes, is a HUNG jury, due to ONE of the 12 jurors disagreeing with the law involved or feeling that an obviously guilty defendant is not guilty for some irrational reason.

There is a fine line between jury nullification and a stupid jury. Many of the examples cited of alleged jury nullification are simply cases of the latter, rather than the former. Juries vote not guilty for the craziest of reasons sometimes. I once got a not guilty verdict on a .27 DUI where the prosecution had a blood test on the defendant. The defendant had some shaggy dog story he told to the jury and they bought it. Jury nullification? No. Stupid jury? Who's to say?

 

[beowolfe]

The most prominent example of jury nullification in recent memory occurred in the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

Anyone who is familiar with the facts in that case knows the material evidence leaves no doubt that Simpson was guilty. But he was pronounced not guilty by a predominately Black jury, apparently in response to tacit encouragement to do so by Simpson's lead counsel, Johnny Cochran.

George Costanza is quite correct in that declaring intention to ignore evidence and support a not guilty verdict will bring a contempt of court charge. But absent any such declaration a jury can issue a not guilty verdict in spite of irrefutable evidence of guilt and that verdict is final. That is the manifest reality of jury nullification, plain and simple. A jury verdict means The People have spoken.

Because the power of a jury to decide guilt or innocence effectively assigns the role of judge to the jury and reduces the judge to the role of referee, judges harbor a strong resentment for this ability to nullify. But because the power to nullify derives from the Magna Carta there is little more they can do about it other than issue admonitions and hope that jurors are intimidated by them.

Judges issue "charges" to jurors who are about to deliberate in a criminal trial. An effort is made to represent these "charges" as orders rather than what they really are, which is basic instructions and nothing more. Unfortunately too many jurors take these "charges" too seriously and are motivated to ignore their consciences.

Bad example.

 

[Oddball]

The most prominent example of jury nullification in recent memory occurred in the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

Wrong.

The jury didn't rule in that case via-a-vis the justness and applicability of the murder law, which would have been nullification, but made their judgment on the basis of of a case prosecuted by total incompetents.

 

[Oddball]

Total crap.

I suggest you Google "Laura Kriho" and get your legal and historical facts straight.

I can understand why prosecutors, and even judges, are afraid of jury nullification, but I have never understood why defense attorneys are not advocating for it left and right. SCOTUS has affirmed the rights of juries to nullify at least three times, it is even written into the Constitutions of several states, and judges are required by law to instruct juries that they can ignore the law in both Maryland and Indiana. Yet we still have george insisting it never happens.

I think part of our problem here is that jury nullification is illegal in California, and that's where I hang my shingle. Read this:

Jury Nullification

So, my comments about JN are based entirely on my own, personal experience with it under California law. I had not realized that it is recognized in some other states.

So judges claim total sovereignty in the courtroom?

I don't think so.

They've made their ruling, now let them try to enforce it.