Jury Nullification

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I know that George, but it should happen more often, There are a few cases where, if juries knew they ultimately had that power, the defendant would walk free. Your examples about marijuana is one, and those three strike laws that get someone life in prison for stealing a candy bar is another. Even if judges actually told juries they could do this I think it would still be rare because you would still need to get 12 people to agree that the person deserves to get off, as anything less than a not guilty verdict allows prosecutors to refile the charges.

 

[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.

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.

i see your point. but I don't see the OJ trial as being relevant to the issue of jury nullification. Had Marcia Clark been less interested in how her hair looked and Chris Darden less interested in Marcia Clark, they would have done much better, imo.

what gerry spence, one of my idols, always said was that if you gave him a room full of 12 people, it didn't matter which 12, because it all comes down to how you present your case. and, interestingly, from what i've seen, juries usually get it right. (usually, not always... unless there is some type of pervasive prejudice).

i don't see it as a pain, btw... i think it's what our system was based on. maybe that's the difference in perspective, i love our system, albeit flawed and in need of fine tuning. that's why i became part of it instead of sitting on the outside like some and lamenting its imperfections.

 

[editec]

If the rule of the law is paramount in every case, why bother with a jury at all?

If Jurors are simply automatons of the legal process, they entirely redundant, and given that they are not versed in the law, they are the least qualified people to mete it out, too.

 

[nraforlife]

...................................
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

yeah well the jury SELECTION processs renders your idea moot in practice.

 

[Oddball]

If the rule of the law is paramount in every case, why bother with a jury at all?

If Jurors are simply automatons of the legal process, they entirely redundant, and given that they are not versed in the law, they are the least qualified people to mete it out, too.

That's the whole point.

If the laws are so convoluted, arbitrarily applied or just plain old stupid, then it's the right of the jury to overrule them and find the defendant(s) not guilty.

One of the major reasons that alcohol prohibition had to be repealed was because jurors were refusing to convict.

According to all the writings of the framers and their contemporaries, the jury was meant to be the defacto fourth branch of de jure government.

 

[Oddball]

I know that George, but it should happen more often, There are a few cases where, if juries knew they ultimately had that power, the defendant would walk free. Your examples about marijuana is one, and those three strike laws that get someone life in prison for stealing a candy bar is another. Even if judges actually told juries they could do this I think it would still be rare because you would still need to get 12 people to agree that the person deserves to get off, as anything less than a not guilty verdict allows prosecutors to refile the charges.

Not entirely correct.

All it takes is one juror to vote not guilty, hang a jury and cause a mistrial. After awhile, cops and prosecutors run out of time and money to prosecute "crimes" that are getting no convictions.

 

[jillian]

If the rule of the law is paramount in every case, why bother with a jury at all?

If Jurors are simply automatons of the legal process, they entirely redundant, and given that they are not versed in the law, they are the least qualified people to mete it out, too.

juries are the finders of FACT. The judge tells them what the law is and if they find certain facts, they have to apply the law they're given in certain ways.

they aren't redundant at all.

 

[Oddball]

For the terminally lazy (both physically and intellectually), I took the liberty of digging up some info on the aforementioned Laura Kriho case:

What's New in the Kriho Case

Holdout Juror in Drug Case, Laura Kriho, Found in Contempt of Court, Fined $1200

Juror Laura Kriho

 

[George Costanza]

With all due respect to the OP, I don't think that jury nullification was intentionally embodied in our Constitution and into the jury system itself, for the purpose of erecting a wall of protection between the government and the citizens. Jury trials were provided for in the Constitution for that purpose, yes - but "jury nullification" was never, to my knowledge, included as part and parcel of the jury system itself.

Our criminal justice system bends over backwards to PREVENT jury nullification from taking place. Jurors are groomed from the minute they step into the courtroom to decide the case solely on the facts presented to them, without any consideration of legal questions or punishment. (In a three strikes trial, the fact that it is a third strike trial is kept from the jury. They have no idea what will happen if they convict the defendant.)

I know there is a body of thought that would like to have it as stated in the OP and the link therein, but in actuality, that simply is not the case.

 

[Oddball]

That opinion flies in the face of numerous published and unambiguous statements of those who set forth the republic.

The FIJA site is replete with legal and lawful points, authorities and quotations of how they intended the American juries to operate.

 

[jillian]

That opinion flies in the face of numerous published and unambiguous statements of those who set forth the republic.

The FIJA site is replete with legal and lawful points, authorities and quotations of how they intended the American juries to operate.

yeah, so some blognut thinks he knows something about the constitution like you think you know something about the constitution.

you know what they say about a 'little' knowledge, doncha?

 

[jillian]

For the terminally lazy (both physically and intellectually), I took the liberty of digging up some info on the aforementioned Laura Kriho case:

What's New in the Kriho Case

Holdout Juror in Drug Case, Laura Kriho, Found in Contempt of Court, Fined $1200

Juror Laura Kriho

what are you trying to provie in regard to the kriho case?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...................................
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

yeah well the jury SELECTION processs renders your idea moot in practice.

Not if everyone who is in the jury pool understands this power, and their right to use it.

 

[jillian]

Not if everyone who is in the jury pool understands this power, and their right to use it.

surely you don't think a juror should lie and take an oath they intend to violate, do you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

With all due respect to the OP, I don't think that jury nullification was intentionally embodied in our Constitution and into the jury system itself, for the purpose of erecting a wall of protection between the government and the citizens. Jury trials were provided for in the Constitution for that purpose, yes - but "jury nullification" was never, to my knowledge, included as part and parcel of the jury system itself.

Our criminal justice system bends over backwards to PREVENT jury nullification from taking place. Jurors are groomed from the minute they step into the courtroom to decide the case solely on the facts presented to them, without any consideration of legal questions or punishment. (In a three strikes trial, the fact that it is a third strike trial is kept from the jury. They have no idea what will happen if they convict the defendant.)

I know there is a body of thought that would like to have it as stated in the OP and the link therein, but in actuality, that simply is not the case.

There are opinions that disagree with you, one of which I posted. If jury nullification were not part of the system we would not have double jeopardy, thus giving jurors the ultimate power to acquit in a criminal case. Whenever a clear miscarriage of justice occurs, like all the KKK members getting away with murder, the prosecution would have a recourse to appeal and retry the case with a new jury.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I believe this would be a perfect case for for the doctrine of jury nullification if it were brought to trial.

Raft guide arrested after helping stranded rafter on Clear Creek - The Denver Post

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not if everyone who is in the jury pool understands this power, and their right to use it.

surely you don't think a juror should lie and take an oath they intend to violate, do you?

No, but if it were clear that this is actually legal, which it is, then it would not be a lie. The fact that courts require people to swear to only follow the law, and ignore right and wrong, bothers me a lot. Some laws are wrong, and the jury should understand that they have a right to decide a case based on that issue.

 

[jillian]

No, but if it were clear that this is actually legal, which it is, then it would not be a lie. The fact that courts require people to swear to only follow the law, and ignore right and wrong, bothers me a lot. Some laws are wrong, and the jury should understand that they have a right to decide a case based on that issue.

jurors swear to apply the law as instructed by the judge to whatever facts they find. if i were a judge and a juror tried to play the jury nullification game, minimally, they'd be taken off the jury and replaced by an alternate. at worst, they'd go to jail for contempt.

some laws are wrong and should be changed. i agree. but they should be changed by the legislature or court. if you don't feel able to apply the appropriate law in a particular case, the time to deal with that is in jury selection.

or you can take a stand and go to jail for 30 days, i guess...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

jurors swear to apply the law as instructed by the judge to whatever facts they find. if i were a judge and a juror tried to play the jury nullification game, minimally, they'd be taken off the jury and replaced by an alternate. at worst, they'd go to jail for contempt.

some laws are wrong and should be changed. i agree. but they should be changed by the legislature or court. if you don't feel able to apply the appropriate law in a particular case, the time to deal with that is in jury selection.

or you can take a stand and go to jail for 30 days, i guess...

I understand that, but the fact is that juries have repeatedly ignored the law. They did so with Harriet Tubman because they believed the FSA was immoral, and they were right. Sometimes waiting for the legislature, or the courts, takes to long.

 

[George Costanza]

No, but if it were clear that this is actually legal, which it is, then it would not be a lie. The fact that courts require people to swear to only follow the law, and ignore right and wrong, bothers me a lot. Some laws are wrong, and the jury should understand that they have a right to decide a case based on that issue.

jurors swear to apply the law as instructed by the judge to whatever facts they find. if i were a judge and a juror tried to play the jury nullification game, minimally, they'd be taken off the jury and replaced by an alternate. at worst, they'd go to jail for contempt.

some laws are wrong and should be changed. i agree. but they should be changed by the legislature or court. if you don't feel able to apply the appropriate law in a particular case, the time to deal with that is in jury selection.

or you can take a stand and go to jail for 30 days, i guess...

Hmmmm . . . In his OP, QW has a link. I went there and clicked on the "Constitutional Authority for Jury Nullification" link I found. This link claims that there are three states which have express language in their state constitutions which gives juries the right to decide BOTH the facts AND "the law."

Of course, this raises the question - suppose a judge were to decide that HE/SHE didn't like a particular law that was on trial in from of him/her. I don't think the judge would get very far by "striking down" the law, merely because he/she felt it was a bad law, even though the judge is the ultimate decider of "the law" in the case at bar.