Jury Nullification

[Quantum Windbag]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

Ever wonder why this was written into the Constitution? Like most of our Constitution, this exists to limit the power of government. Juries have the power to find someone accused unjustly, or even guilty of breaking an unjust law, not guilty. This is the secret power that citizens have that the state does not want you know about.

it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact

[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.

This is the ultimate power we, as citizens, have over the government. It is actually part of the checks and balances built into our system. Those who believe in liberty need to be informed jurors.

Fully Informed Jury Association

 

[Oddball]

Outstanding source....I send them a C-note every year.

 

[syrenn]

Why do you think lawyers wrangle so hard for the jury of their choice? They are looking for the most sympathetic persons for their case.

Just an example: OJ simpson

 

[Oddball]

Looyahs are officers of the court first....They serve the oligarchy before they serve any client.

Judges are merely looyahs with a God complex.

The only check on those overdressed hooligans is the jury.

 

[jillian]

total and complete ignorance.

no surprises.

 

[Oddball]

Nice historical and legal citations, counselor.

 

[jillian]

Nice historical and legal citations, counselor.

i've told you, i don't waste my time trying to teach pigs to talk...

when you sit on a jury you take an oath to follow the law.

and just for the record, yes, each side wants a sympathetic jury... but those sides are both working for a sympathetic jury and end up with one that's generally impartial since the opposing forces balance out.

and re OJ... the prosecution did a terrible job... there was no way they proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

total and complete ignorance.

no surprises.

Let me guess, you oppose jury nullification on the grounds that it usurps the rule of law. Would you agree that Harriet Tubman should have been convicted under the Fugitive Slave Act because she broke the law?

 

[George Costanza]

Nice historical and legal citations, counselor.

Historical and legal citations to counter your outrageous statement that "Looyahs are officers of the court first....They serve the oligarchy before they serve any client"?

You really stuck your ass out there on this one, D-Man. Too late to edit it now, you've been quoted.

 

[George Costanza]

total and complete ignorance.

no surprises.

Let me guess, you oppose jury nullification on the grounds that it usurps the rule of law. Would you agree that Harriet Tubman should have been convicted under the Fugitive Slave Act because she broke the law?

I think she was referring to Dude's post when she mentioned total and complete ignorance - which, of course, it is.

 

[jillian]

total and complete ignorance.

no surprises.

Let me guess, you oppose jury nullification on the grounds that it usurps the rule of law. Would you agree that Harriet Tubman should have been convicted under the Fugitive Slave Act because she broke the law?

jury nullification is the equivalent of a tantrum.

i became a lawyer because i love the law... not because i want to see a bunch of yahoos pervert it.

nice example...

i don't think the dred scott decision or plessy v ferguson should have come out the way they did either... but they did.

 

[jillian]

total and complete ignorance.

no surprises.

Let me guess, you oppose jury nullification on the grounds that it usurps the rule of law. Would you agree that Harriet Tubman should have been convicted under the Fugitive Slave Act because she broke the law?

I think she was referring to Dude's post when she mentioned total and complete ignorance - which, of course, it is.

yep.. i was.. and it is.

but i also think the concept of jury nullification is ignorant. and the people who talk about it generally wouldn't have the cojones to tell the judge that's what they believe if called upon to do so.

 

[syrenn]

Nice historical and legal citations, counselor.

i've told you, i don't waste my time trying to teach pigs to talk...

when you sit on a jury you take an oath to follow the law.

and just for the record, yes, each side wants a sympathetic jury... but those sides are both working for a sympathetic jury and end up with one that's generally impartial since the opposing forces balance out.

and re OJ... the prosecution did a terrible job... there was no way they proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Agreed. And having to report to jury is a pain in the ass.

OJ is an example only because there are so many opinions of what went on and how it was tried.

 

[George Costanza]

Jury nullification is something that all defense attorneys like to think about, but in actual practice, it rarely happens. Probably the best example of jury nullification is where the defendant is clearly guilty, but the jury finds him not guilty because they don't agree with the crime being charged. The defendant is charged with possession of marijuana and his trial takes place in Haight-Ashbury. There are other examples, but the one I have given is the most often talked about.

The thing is, that all twelve jurors have to agree the defendant is not guilty. Sometimes, juries will hang because one of the jurors is a nullification juror, but it is almost impossible to get all twelve jurors to nullify an obvious verdict. The judge instructs the jury that they are to be the sole judges of the facts, while the judge is the sole judge of all legal matters. This instruction is worded in such a way that it effectively counters any ideas the jury may have about jury nullification.

And jurors take their instructions very seriously. If one juror speaks of nullification during deliberations, the other jurors will generally rat him/her out to the judge, who will then "unseat" that juror and replace him/her with an alternate juror.

Believe me - it sounds like a great concept, but it almost never happens in actual practice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

total and complete ignorance.

no surprises.

Let me guess, you oppose jury nullification on the grounds that it usurps the rule of law. Would you agree that Harriet Tubman should have been convicted under the Fugitive Slave Act because she broke the law?

I think she was referring to Dude's post when she mentioned total and complete ignorance - which, of course, it is.

On those grounds I will accept her as being correct.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me guess, you oppose jury nullification on the grounds that it usurps the rule of law. Would you agree that Harriet Tubman should have been convicted under the Fugitive Slave Act because she broke the law?

I think she was referring to Dude's post when she mentioned total and complete ignorance - which, of course, it is.

yep.. i was.. and it is.

but i also think the concept of jury nullification is ignorant. and the people who talk about it generally wouldn't have the cojones to tell the judge that's what they believe if called upon to do so.

That bunch of yahoos is integral to the law you love, so you should love them, or at least respect them. Those jurors that refused to find Harriet Tubman are as much a part of out history as she is, without them she would have been in prison and a lot fewer slaves would have found their way to Canada.

Does jury nullification result in bad decisions? Of course it does, but so does the law when it is properly applied, as the two cases you cite indicate. You cannot truly love the law if you refuse to accept the integral part that juries play in it.

 

[George Costanza]

Let me guess, you oppose jury nullification on the grounds that it usurps the rule of law. Would you agree that Harriet Tubman should have been convicted under the Fugitive Slave Act because she broke the law?

I think she was referring to Dude's post when she mentioned total and complete ignorance - which, of course, it is.

On those grounds I will accept her as being correct.

You'd better, if you know what's good for you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

but i also think the concept of jury nullification is ignorant. and the people who talk about it generally wouldn't have the cojones to tell the judge that's what they believe if called upon to do so.

I know a few that have. It usually gets them tossed out during voir dire for cause, often by the judge.

 

[Oddball]

Nice historical and legal citations, counselor.

i've told you, i don't waste my time trying to teach pigs to talk...

Quashed again by that stunning fusillade legal points, citations and historical references like these: Jurors' Citizens Guide to Jury Duty and Jury Nullification

 

[Oddball]

but i also think the concept of jury nullification is ignorant. and the people who talk about it generally wouldn't have the cojones to tell the judge that's what they believe if called upon to do so.

They get thrown out of the jury pool with prejudice.

Try Googling Laura Kriho, and tell the class what crime she was ultimately convicted of, for her hanging of the jury in that case because of her right to judge both the facts of the case and the legitimacy of the law.

G'head....We have all the time in the world.