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.
You need to tell that to the cops, the vast majority of whom will not hesitate to lie in their arrest reports and on the stand. In fact, learning how to lie is an important part of becoming an effective police officer.In the first place, all potential jurors are carefully informed of all the charges at the commencement of jury selection. There is a reason for that. The court (judge) and the attorneys, want to know how the prospective jurors feel about the law - for the precise reason of excluding any potential juror who might "have a problem" enforcing the particular charges or, conversely, who might "have a problem" finding someone not guilty of the particular charges.
Thus far, QW, we have been discussing the issue in the context of jury nullification based on a dissatisfaction with the law, as opposed to factual jury nullification, which is an entirely different breed of cat.
Let's stick to legal jury nullification for the moment. How would you know you intended to nullify the charge before you knew what the charge was? You wouldn't. But you would be informed of the charge prior to the start of jury selection. Let's say you are an ardent opponent of the marijuana laws. You sit down in the courtroom and are informed that this case will involve possession of marijuana charges. Seems to me you might have a pretty good idea at that point, about what you would do if you got on the jury.
Factual jury nullification is where a juror has no problem with the law, but votes not guilty because he thinks that, on the facts presented, that would be the "right thing to do," even though the facts clearly show the defendant is guilty. One of the best homicide lawyers in our office recently said, in a homicide seminar: There are only two, main questions in any murder case. (1) Did the victim deserve to die and (2) Was the defendant the right man for the job? He was being facetious, of course, but the fact remains that, in many murder cases, these questions do weigh heavily.
As I have mentioned earlier, in the course of my career, I have probably had four or five cases where I hoped that the jury might find my client not guilty even though he clearly was, on the basis that he was obviously getting screwed, the victim was a real jerk, etc.
It never happened. And it has never happened to any other lawyer I have ever talked with about the subject. Why? Because jurors take their instructions very, very seriously. I have had a juror come up to me afterwords and tell me, "Sorry we had to do that." He was, in effect, telling me that if jury nullification was allowed, and they had not been instructed to follow the law and apply that law to the facts without regard for sympathy for either side, they wold have acquitted my client.
That was a good juror.
The example I posted to start this thread was exactly what you are describing. The potential jurors were asked if they could convict someone felony possession of less than 1/16th of an ounce, and most of them answered honestly and said no, so many that it was impossible to actually seat a jury. What exactly is your problem with that again? Where did they violate any oaths or not listen to the sacred jury instructions.
Where I get hung up in voire dire is when a judge asks me if I would make a decision based solely on his instructions. I once got threatened with contempt charges when I answered no to that, and when asked for clarification honestly answered that it would depend on what those instructions would be. If he instructed me to do something that I believed was immoral or illegal I would ignore those instructions, which is why I refuse to answer questions like that until I know all the facts.
I always answer the questions I am asked honestly, I advise everyone to do the same. That does not obligate me to sit up there and state that I am opposed to certain laws if I am not asked. Nor does it tell me that the state is attempting to prosecute someone for something that, when applied to them, is actually a political crime and not a criminal one.
Maybe if more people who understood the concept, and were willing to vote their conscience instead of blindly following the instructions of judges who think that they have the power to force verdicts that are morally wrong, you might occasionally see people who are guilty but shouldn't be in prison released.
BTW, that guy was not a good juror, he was a good slave. There is a significant difference between the two.
Unfortunately for you we are a nation of laws, not you and your beliefs.
I think you mean a prospective juror, not jurist.George,
You started out saying Jury Nullification is a myth. Then you said you have no doubt that it happens. Now you're saying the FIJA is a lunatic fringe and consists of false prophets. In this you appear fixed on the notion that Jury Nullification necessarily includes a declaration of intent to nullify and in that assumption you are mistaken.
I am not a lawyer but I did attend law school (Fordham University) and as a Field Investigator for the New York City Corporation Counsel's Office it would take a while to remember how many times I testified in criminal (and civil) trials. So I am quite familiar with this topic and have discussed it with broadly experienced experts. Jury Nullification does not mean to announce, or to ever admit, one's intention to nullify. Jury Nulllification simply means a jury issuing a not guilty verdict when there is incontrovertible evidence of guilt.
We presently don't see much nullification for two reasons. First, the vast majority of criminal defendants are low-lifes who are clearly guilty as charged and who elicit sympathy or empathy from no one and, last, because the vast majority of jurors are ignorant (not stupid) and are unaware of their power. But, as was recently demonstrated in a petty marijuana case, the public is beginning to show a willingness to assert the substance of their collective conscience when called upon to support what essentially are tyrannical laws.
The FIJA's purpose is to inform the public of the correct way to exercise their power, which is to tell the truth during the selection process but don't reveal their intention to nullify if their conscience points them in that direction. Once the public becomes aware of that power and how to exercise it, which will happen when the need arises, you will see vigorous attempts to re-define the role of juries.
What?
If during voir dire a prospective jurist states they will not follow the charged law in their deliberations and base that and the evidence in their verdict they are dismissed for cause by the judge.
In either case, I'm not aware of the conflict in my statement you appear to be challenging.
You need to tell that to the cops, the vast majority of whom will not hesitate to lie in their arrest reports and on the stand. In fact, learning how to lie is an important part of becoming an effective police officer.The example I posted to start this thread was exactly what you are describing. The potential jurors were asked if they could convict someone felony possession of less than 1/16th of an ounce, and most of them answered honestly and said no, so many that it was impossible to actually seat a jury. What exactly is your problem with that again? Where did they violate any oaths or not listen to the sacred jury instructions.
Where I get hung up in voire dire is when a judge asks me if I would make a decision based solely on his instructions. I once got threatened with contempt charges when I answered no to that, and when asked for clarification honestly answered that it would depend on what those instructions would be. If he instructed me to do something that I believed was immoral or illegal I would ignore those instructions, which is why I refuse to answer questions like that until I know all the facts.
I always answer the questions I am asked honestly, I advise everyone to do the same. That does not obligate me to sit up there and state that I am opposed to certain laws if I am not asked. Nor does it tell me that the state is attempting to prosecute someone for something that, when applied to them, is actually a political crime and not a criminal one.
Maybe if more people who understood the concept, and were willing to vote their conscience instead of blindly following the instructions of judges who think that they have the power to force verdicts that are morally wrong, you might occasionally see people who are guilty but shouldn't be in prison released.
BTW, that guy was not a good juror, he was a good slave. There is a significant difference between the two.
Unfortunately for you we are a nation of laws, not you and your beliefs.
In case you don't know it, the typical criminal trial is a lying contest -- as anyone who has real experience with this subject will tell you. So all this talk about truth and integrity is patently absurd and reflective of imaginative ignorance.
In case you don't know it, the typical criminal trial is a lying contest -- as anyone who has real experience with this subject will tell you. So all this talk about truth and integrity is patently absurd and reflective of imaginative ignorance.
In the first place, all potential jurors are carefully informed of all the charges at the commencement of jury selection. There is a reason for that. The court (judge) and the attorneys, want to know how the prospective jurors feel about the law - for the precise reason of excluding any potential juror who might "have a problem" enforcing the particular charges or, conversely, who might "have a problem" finding someone not guilty of the particular charges.
Thus far, QW, we have been discussing the issue in the context of jury nullification based on a dissatisfaction with the law, as opposed to factual jury nullification, which is an entirely different breed of cat.
Let's stick to legal jury nullification for the moment. How would you know you intended to nullify the charge before you knew what the charge was? You wouldn't. But you would be informed of the charge prior to the start of jury selection. Let's say you are an ardent opponent of the marijuana laws. You sit down in the courtroom and are informed that this case will involve possession of marijuana charges. Seems to me you might have a pretty good idea at that point, about what you would do if you got on the jury.
Factual jury nullification is where a juror has no problem with the law, but votes not guilty because he thinks that, on the facts presented, that would be the "right thing to do," even though the facts clearly show the defendant is guilty. One of the best homicide lawyers in our office recently said, in a homicide seminar: There are only two, main questions in any murder case. (1) Did the victim deserve to die and (2) Was the defendant the right man for the job? He was being facetious, of course, but the fact remains that, in many murder cases, these questions do weigh heavily.
As I have mentioned earlier, in the course of my career, I have probably had four or five cases where I hoped that the jury might find my client not guilty even though he clearly was, on the basis that he was obviously getting screwed, the victim was a real jerk, etc.
It never happened. And it has never happened to any other lawyer I have ever talked with about the subject. Why? Because jurors take their instructions very, very seriously. I have had a juror come up to me afterwords and tell me, "Sorry we had to do that." He was, in effect, telling me that if jury nullification was allowed, and they had not been instructed to follow the law and apply that law to the facts without regard for sympathy for either side, they wold have acquitted my client.
That was a good juror.
The example I posted to start this thread was exactly what you are describing. The potential jurors were asked if they could convict someone felony possession of less than 1/16th of an ounce, and most of them answered honestly and said no, so many that it was impossible to actually seat a jury. What exactly is your problem with that again? Where did they violate any oaths or not listen to the sacred jury instructions.
Where I get hung up in voire dire is when a judge asks me if I would make a decision based solely on his instructions. I once got threatened with contempt charges when I answered no to that, and when asked for clarification honestly answered that it would depend on what those instructions would be. If he instructed me to do something that I believed was immoral or illegal I would ignore those instructions, which is why I refuse to answer questions like that until I know all the facts.
I always answer the questions I am asked honestly, I advise everyone to do the same. That does not obligate me to sit up there and state that I am opposed to certain laws if I am not asked. Nor does it tell me that the state is attempting to prosecute someone for something that, when applied to them, is actually a political crime and not a criminal one.
Maybe if more people who understood the concept, and were willing to vote their conscience instead of blindly following the instructions of judges who think that they have the power to force verdicts that are morally wrong, you might occasionally see people who are guilty but shouldn't be in prison released.
BTW, that guy was not a good juror, he was a good slave. There is a significant difference between the two.
Unfortunately for you we are a nation of laws, not you and your beliefs.
Something about the Constitution.
You can change the law but you have to follow the laws. You can certainly choose not to but ignorance of the law is never an excuse and you have to take the penalties if you choose not to follow the law.
Always. Otherwise everyone would object and we would have chaos.
I was a Field Investigator for the Corporation Counsel's Office, New York City Department of Law. A significant part of my workload involved collecting background data for defending lawsuits involving misconduct by NYC Police, Transit Police, Housing Police and Correction Officers.In case you don't know it, the typical criminal trial is a lying contest -- as anyone who has real experience with this subject will tell you. So all this talk about truth and integrity is patently absurd and reflective of imaginative ignorance.
So tell me, Mike - what real experience do YOU have with the criminal justice system?
I was a Field Investigator for the Corporation Counsel's Office, New York City Department of Law. A significant part of my workload involved collecting background data for defending lawsuits involving misconduct by NYC Police, Transit Police, Housing Police and Correction Officers.In case you don't know it, the typical criminal trial is a lying contest -- as anyone who has real experience with this subject will tell you. So all this talk about truth and integrity is patently absurd and reflective of imaginative ignorance.
So tell me, Mike - what real experience do YOU have with the criminal justice system?
So, again:
I'm curious to know why, as a supposed defense attorney, you are so uptight about the possible presence of a prospective nullifier on a jury, which would facilitate your purpose. Are you some naive, frustrated, reborn Diogenes -- which seems to be the impression you're trying to convey here? Or are you really a prosecutor and don't wish to admit it?
You've ignored that question but it deserves an answer.
The example I posted to start this thread was exactly what you are describing. The potential jurors were asked if they could convict someone felony possession of less than 1/16th of an ounce, and most of them answered honestly and said no, so many that it was impossible to actually seat a jury. What exactly is your problem with that again? Where did they violate any oaths or not listen to the sacred jury instructions.
Where I get hung up in voire dire is when a judge asks me if I would make a decision based solely on his instructions. I once got threatened with contempt charges when I answered no to that, and when asked for clarification honestly answered that it would depend on what those instructions would be. If he instructed me to do something that I believed was immoral or illegal I would ignore those instructions, which is why I refuse to answer questions like that until I know all the facts.
I always answer the questions I am asked honestly, I advise everyone to do the same. That does not obligate me to sit up there and state that I am opposed to certain laws if I am not asked. Nor does it tell me that the state is attempting to prosecute someone for something that, when applied to them, is actually a political crime and not a criminal one.
Maybe if more people who understood the concept, and were willing to vote their conscience instead of blindly following the instructions of judges who think that they have the power to force verdicts that are morally wrong, you might occasionally see people who are guilty but shouldn't be in prison released.
BTW, that guy was not a good juror, he was a good slave. There is a significant difference between the two.
Unfortunately for you we are a nation of laws, not you and your beliefs.
Something about the Constitution.
You can change the law but you have to follow the laws. You can certainly choose not to but ignorance of the law is never an excuse and you have to take the penalties if you choose not to follow the law.
Always. Otherwise everyone would object and we would have chaos.
Yep, we are a nation of laws, which explains why all the juries that were charged with finding the activists that worked the underground railroad guilty refused to do so. Chaos does not come from standing for principles, it comes from not standing for them. That is the essence of the Constitution.
What are your thoughts on the following:[...]My relatives are from Clintondale NY, Quakers that were active in what you speak of.
However, I have always found it amusing how many claim that this nation was founded on Christianity and that the Founders were strong Christians in all of their principles.
Your post proves that is false.
Your post is invalid for the fact that it was the PRINCIPLES that those juries held that convicted all the underground railroad supporters. They stated so publicly and held up their Bibles to support it.
Not all God fearing Americans have the CORRECTprinciples. Principles vary and change like the wind and are subject to the weaknesses, prejudices, hate, ignorance and many other variables of humans.
More often than not, principles can not be defined and are often defined and interpreted differently by each individual.
That is why we have THE LAW.
What are your thoughts on the following:[...]My relatives are from Clintondale NY, Quakers that were active in what you speak of.
However, I have always found it amusing how many claim that this nation was founded on Christianity and that the Founders were strong Christians in all of their principles.
Your post proves that is false.
Your post is invalid for the fact that it was the PRINCIPLES that those juries held that convicted all the underground railroad supporters. They stated so publicly and held up their Bibles to support it.
Not all God fearing Americans have the CORRECTprinciples. Principles vary and change like the wind and are subject to the weaknesses, prejudices, hate, ignorance and many other variables of humans.
More often than not, principles can not be defined and are often defined and interpreted differently by each individual.
That is why we have THE LAW.
Several state constitutions, including the Georgia Constitution of 1777 and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 specifically provided that "the jury shall be judges of law, as well as fact." In Pennsylvania, Supreme Court Justice James Wilson noted, in his Philadelphia law lectures of 1790, that when "a difference in sentiment takes place between the judges and jury, with regard to a point of law,...The jury must do their duty, and their whole duty; They must decide the law as well as the fact." In 1879, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that "the power of the jury to be judge of the law in criminal cases is one of the most valuable securities guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."
John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court stated in 1789: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." Samuel Chase, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence, said in 1796: "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts. " U. S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in 1902: "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." Harlan F. Stone, the 12th Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, stated in 1941: "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
In a 1952 decision (Morissette v United States), the U. S. Supreme Court recognized the powers of juries to engage in nullification. The court stated:
"Had the jury convicted on proper instructions it would be the end of the matter. But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges....They might have refused to brand Morissette as a thief. Had they done so, that too would have been the end of the matter."
In a 1972 decision (U. S. v Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139), the Court said: "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge."
Jury Nullification
The typical elitist attitude of the oligarch, which holds that the common man is just too stupid to understand a just application of a just law and the unjustness of foolhardy laws.I was a Field Investigator for the Corporation Counsel's Office, New York City Department of Law. A significant part of my workload involved collecting background data for defending lawsuits involving misconduct by NYC Police, Transit Police, Housing Police and Correction Officers.So tell me, Mike - what real experience do YOU have with the criminal justice system?
So, again:
I'm curious to know why, as a supposed defense attorney, you are so uptight about the possible presence of a prospective nullifier on a jury, which would facilitate your purpose. Are you some naive, frustrated, reborn Diogenes -- which seems to be the impression you're trying to convey here? Or are you really a prosecutor and don't wish to admit it?
You've ignored that question but it deserves an answer.
I haven't ignored that question. It is a tough one to answer - and I may not provide the right answer even now.
It would seem that defense attorneys would be all in favor of jury nullification. It gets the result they would like for their client. But at what cost? The cost is watching a juror violate the law and knowingly taking advantage of it.
If our system works the way it should, no juror would ever be seated on a jury if he/she was of a mind to nullify, because they would announce that fact on voir dire and would never be seated on the jury. They would be excused for cause.
I am not in favor of something that openly violates established our criminal justice system. So, even though it might benefit my client, I would not be in favor of it. One might as well argue for bribing jurors and then wonder why defense counsel might not be in favor of something like that.
That's not a very good answer to your question, but it's the best I can come up with tonight.
Unfortunately for you we are a nation of laws, not you and your beliefs.
Something about the Constitution.
You can change the law but you have to follow the laws. You can certainly choose not to but ignorance of the law is never an excuse and you have to take the penalties if you choose not to follow the law.
Always. Otherwise everyone would object and we would have chaos.
Yep, we are a nation of laws, which explains why all the juries that were charged with finding the activists that worked the underground railroad guilty refused to do so. Chaos does not come from standing for principles, it comes from not standing for them. That is the essence of the Constitution.
I like that answer. My relatives are from Clintondale NY, Quakers that were active in what you speak of.
However, I have always found it amusing how many claim that this nation was founded on Christianity and that the Founders were strong Christians in all of their principles.
Your post proves that is false.
Your post is invalid for the fact that it was the PRINCIPLES that those juries held that convicted all the underground railroad supporters. They stated so publicly and held up their Bibles to support it.
Not all God fearing Americans have the CORRECTprinciples. Principles vary and change like the wind and are subject to the weaknesses, prejudices, hate, ignorance and many other variables of humans.
More often than not, principles can not be defined and are often defined and interpreted differently by each individual.
That is why we have THE LAW.
What are your thoughts on the following:[...]My relatives are from Clintondale NY, Quakers that were active in what you speak of.
However, I have always found it amusing how many claim that this nation was founded on Christianity and that the Founders were strong Christians in all of their principles.
Your post proves that is false.
Your post is invalid for the fact that it was the PRINCIPLES that those juries held that convicted all the underground railroad supporters. They stated so publicly and held up their Bibles to support it.
Not all God fearing Americans have the CORRECTprinciples. Principles vary and change like the wind and are subject to the weaknesses, prejudices, hate, ignorance and many other variables of humans.
More often than not, principles can not be defined and are often defined and interpreted differently by each individual.
That is why we have THE LAW.
Several state constitutions, including the Georgia Constitution of 1777 and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 specifically provided that "the jury shall be judges of law, as well as fact." In Pennsylvania, Supreme Court Justice James Wilson noted, in his Philadelphia law lectures of 1790, that when "a difference in sentiment takes place between the judges and jury, with regard to a point of law,...The jury must do their duty, and their whole duty; They must decide the law as well as the fact." In 1879, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that "the power of the jury to be judge of the law in criminal cases is one of the most valuable securities guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."
John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court stated in 1789: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." Samuel Chase, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence, said in 1796: "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts. " U. S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in 1902: "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." Harlan F. Stone, the 12th Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, stated in 1941: "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
In a 1952 decision (Morissette v United States), the U. S. Supreme Court recognized the powers of juries to engage in nullification. The court stated:
"Had the jury convicted on proper instructions it would be the end of the matter. But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges....They might have refused to brand Morissette as a thief. Had they done so, that too would have been the end of the matter."
In a 1972 decision (U. S. v Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139), the Court said: "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge."
Jury Nullification
I have no problem with juries applying the law to the facts. Ignoring it outright is when prolems arise.
Yep, we are a nation of laws, which explains why all the juries that were charged with finding the activists that worked the underground railroad guilty refused to do so. Chaos does not come from standing for principles, it comes from not standing for them. That is the essence of the Constitution.
I like that answer. My relatives are from Clintondale NY, Quakers that were active in what you speak of.
However, I have always found it amusing how many claim that this nation was founded on Christianity and that the Founders were strong Christians in all of their principles.
Your post proves that is false.
Your post is invalid for the fact that it was the PRINCIPLES that those juries held that convicted all the underground railroad supporters. They stated so publicly and held up their Bibles to support it.
Not all God fearing Americans have the CORRECTprinciples. Principles vary and change like the wind and are subject to the weaknesses, prejudices, hate, ignorance and many other variables of humans.
More often than not, principles can not be defined and are often defined and interpreted differently by each individual.
That is why we have THE LAW.
The law is a principle, and can be just as wrong as any other principle. Clinging to any principle, even the law, just because it exists is wrong.
What are your thoughts on the following:
Several state constitutions, including the Georgia Constitution of 1777 and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 specifically provided that "the jury shall be judges of law, as well as fact." In Pennsylvania, Supreme Court Justice James Wilson noted, in his Philadelphia law lectures of 1790, that when "a difference in sentiment takes place between the judges and jury, with regard to a point of law,...The jury must do their duty, and their whole duty; They must decide the law as well as the fact." In 1879, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that "the power of the jury to be judge of the law in criminal cases is one of the most valuable securities guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."
John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court stated in 1789: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." Samuel Chase, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence, said in 1796: "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts. " U. S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in 1902: "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." Harlan F. Stone, the 12th Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, stated in 1941: "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
In a 1952 decision (Morissette v United States), the U. S. Supreme Court recognized the powers of juries to engage in nullification. The court stated:
"Had the jury convicted on proper instructions it would be the end of the matter. But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges....They might have refused to brand Morissette as a thief. Had they done so, that too would have been the end of the matter."
In a 1972 decision (U. S. v Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139), the Court said: "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge."
Jury Nullification
I have no problem with juries applying the law to the facts. Ignoring it outright is when prolems arise.
Which is what I advocate when I talk about jury nullification. People who claim that nullification would inevitable lead to destruction of our justice system are arguing something that does not happen, What could lead to the destruction of our system is the federal government stepping in after a person has been found not guilty and prosecuting someone for a federal crime. I know the courts have applied a convoluted logic to make this possible, but it should make anyone who beleives in the prinacy of the law cringe.
The release of everyone who was guilty of lynching during the bad old days, though reprehensible, did not destroy our country. Other trials were held, and other people were convicted of murder.
It is a mistake to expect that the Constitution should serve as a legal syllabus. The reason you will not find any direct reference to jury nullification in the Articles of The Constitution is the power of jury nullification predates the Constitution in that it derives from the Magna Carta.Where in the Constitution does it give the power to the juries to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to not enforce?
It is a mistake to expect that the Constitution should serve as a legal syllabus. The reason you will not find any direct reference to jury nullification in the Articles of The Constitution is the power of jury nullification predates the Constitution in that it derives from the Magna Carta.Where in the Constitution does it give the power to the juries to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to not enforce?
The power of jury nullification was established as a fundamental principle of Common Law long before the Framers of The Constitution were born.
I like that answer. My relatives are from Clintondale NY, Quakers that were active in what you speak of.
However, I have always found it amusing how many claim that this nation was founded on Christianity and that the Founders were strong Christians in all of their principles.
Your post proves that is false.
Your post is invalid for the fact that it was the PRINCIPLES that those juries held that convicted all the underground railroad supporters. They stated so publicly and held up their Bibles to support it.
Not all God fearing Americans have the CORRECTprinciples. Principles vary and change like the wind and are subject to the weaknesses, prejudices, hate, ignorance and many other variables of humans.
More often than not, principles can not be defined and are often defined and interpreted differently by each individual.
That is why we have THE LAW.
The law is a principle, and can be just as wrong as any other principle. Clinging to any principle, even the law, just because it exists is wrong.
What principle can you break and go to jail?
We are a nation of laws, not men and their differing principles.
I have no problem with juries applying the law to the facts. Ignoring it outright is when prolems arise.
Which is what I advocate when I talk about jury nullification. People who claim that nullification would inevitable lead to destruction of our justice system are arguing something that does not happen, What could lead to the destruction of our system is the federal government stepping in after a person has been found not guilty and prosecuting someone for a federal crime. I know the courts have applied a convoluted logic to make this possible, but it should make anyone who beleives in the prinacy of the law cringe.
The release of everyone who was guilty of lynching during the bad old days, though reprehensible, did not destroy our country. Other trials were held, and other people were convicted of murder.
Where in the Constitution does it give the power to the juries to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to not enforce?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
