Posters for the jury

[strollingbones]

he most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels (the only issue the court said the jury was free to decide, as the court deemed the truth or falsity of the statements to be irrelevant), the jury nonetheless returned a verdict of "Not Guilty."

Jury nullification appeared at other times in our history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws. In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act. In the mid 1800s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws. And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws.

More recent examples of nullification might include acquittals of "mercy killers," including Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and minor drug offenders.

Jury Nullification: History, questions and answers about nullification, links


its legal.....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

a friend of mine sat on a murder trial......i never understood how they jury came to the verdict they did...to me it was obvious it was 1st degree murder...the guy left the party...went to his car and got his gun...returned and shot someone.....but the jury came back with 2nd degree murder....not premeditated....he never spoke of it....said they came in with the right verdict and it was done.... i would hate to sit on a murder trial....

my husband was on jury for a case where a guy shot a kid on halloween over being egged...the defendant accepted a last minute plea deal...lucky he did...cause the jury was gonna hang him...

I am not sure what case you are talking about, but if he went straight to his car without stopping or pausing to think about what he was doing it couldn't be anything but second degree murder. That's part of the difference of 1st and 2nd degree murder. pausing to think about what you are going to do. Heat of the moment. As my Constitutional LAW instructor told us in BLET.

 

[Emma]

I admit have serious questions about Zimmerman's story ... and other particulars in this case.

However.

It's not up to Zimmerman to prove his innocence. I think his family and friends have done him a great disservice (and he did so himself with his actions just prior to his arrest). And I was rather surprised to see his father (a judge) out there giving interviews and blabbing about supposed "facts" in this case. He, of all people, should know to keep his mouth shut. I am impressed with the new attorney, and I expect he'll keep Zimmerman and Co. on a short leash, as he should.

I would not need to see Zimmerman testify, nor would I expect him to do so --- the Fifth is there to protect innocent people from incriminating themselves.

(This should be mandatory viewing in every high school civics class):

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik"]Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

So as it stands now, with what we know now, I couldn't vote to convict on second degree murder. It would be up to the prosecutor to prove to me that he was guilty. So I do feel I could sit on that jury, listen to all the evidence and weigh it against the law as it applies to this case.

 

[California Girl]

I admit have serious questions about Zimmerman's story ... and other particulars in this case.

However.

It's not up to Zimmerman to prove his innocence. I think his family and friends have done him a great disservice (and he did so himself with his actions just prior to his arrest). And I was rather surprised to see his father (a judge) out there giving interviews and blabbing about supposed "facts" in this case. He, of all people, should know to keep his mouth shut. I am impressed with the new attorney, and I expect he'll keep Zimmerman and Co. on a short leash, as he should.

I would not need to see Zimmerman testify, nor would I expect him to do so --- the Fifth is there to protect innocent people from incriminating themselves.

(This should be mandatory viewing in every high school civics class):

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1 - YouTube

So as it stands now, with what we know now, I couldn't vote to convict on second degree murder. It would be up to the prosecutor to prove to me that he was guilty. So I do feel I could sit on that jury, listen to all the evidence and weigh it against the law as it applies to this case.

It seemed to be fine and dandy when we had the Martin family, NBP, Sharpton et al running around screaming 'racism', and 'murder'.... but now it's an issue because people who know Zimmerman came out and tried to counter that ranting..... yea, that seems rational. Not.

Three sides to this - as with most other issues. There is Martin's side, Zimmerman's side, and the truth. I am interested only in one side... that is the truth.

But, it is fascinating to note that those who kept insisting that Zimmerman said 'fucking coons' are now ignoring the fact that he did not say that.

 

[saveliberty]

Zimmerman admits killing Martin. The only real point to clarify is was it self defense. Self defense requires the defendant to explain that. Interesting, in that most cases do require the prosecution to prove guilt. Here, self defense looks unlikely when the defendent won't explain. Most legal experts seem to agree with this.

Now what happens when you put the defendent on the stand? Lawyers do just about anything to avoid that normally. For good reason.

 

[LockeJaw]

I am surprised lockejaw didn't make the jury.

I did, I volunteered and I would IRL as well.

 

[Emma]

It seemed to be fine and dandy when we had the Martin family, NBP, Sharpton et al running around screaming 'racism', and 'murder'.... but now it's an issue because people who know Zimmerman came out and tried to counter that ranting..... yea, that seems rational. Not.

Yes it is rational. They weren't facing the possibility of charges and arrest. As a possible defendant to *whatever* charges were coming, Zimmerman, to include his friends and family and attorneys speaking on his behalf, should have kept their mouths shut.

 

[Emma]

Zimmerman admits killing Martin. The only real point to clarify is was it self defense. Self defense requires the defendant to explain that. Interesting, in that most cases do require the prosecution to prove guilt. Here, self defense looks unlikely when the defendent won't explain. Most legal experts seem to agree with this.

Now what happens when you put the defendent on the stand? Lawyers do just about anything to avoid that normally. For good reason.

As a juror, I'd expect to hear the prosecution prove that it wasn't self-defense. I wouldn't need to hear from Zimmerman at all.

 

[koshergrl]

I guess that's a good jury if you want to make sure Zimmerman goes down.

I don't see how paperview and Ravi could be considered impartial though.

 

[koshergrl]

Zimmerman admits killing Martin. The only real point to clarify is was it self defense. Self defense requires the defendant to explain that. Interesting, in that most cases do require the prosecution to prove guilt. Here, self defense looks unlikely when the defendent won't explain. Most legal experts seem to agree with this.

Now what happens when you put the defendent on the stand? Lawyers do just about anything to avoid that normally. For good reason.

As a juror, I'd expect to hear the prosecution prove that it wasn't self-defense. I wouldn't need to hear from Zimmerman at all.

Zimmerman has a right to speak, if he so desires.

 

[California Girl]

Been reviewing a bit. I'm going to add Trajan to my list.

Emma
Paperview
Gawdag
Gadfy
Me D)
Uptownliving
Bigreb
Ravi
High_Gravity
Lockejaw
Trajan

Why am I not on this list? biatch.

 

[Emma]

I guess that's a good jury if you want to make sure Zimmerman goes down.

I don't see how paperview and Ravi could be considered impartial though.

I don't know Ravi, except for a limited time here. But I've known paperview for years. She is as honest, rational and fair-minded as anyone you'd ever want to meet. I have no doubt whatsoever that she could be impartial and vote according to the evidence presented at trial.

 

[California Girl]

It seemed to be fine and dandy when we had the Martin family, NBP, Sharpton et al running around screaming 'racism', and 'murder'.... but now it's an issue because people who know Zimmerman came out and tried to counter that ranting..... yea, that seems rational. Not.

Yes it is rational. They weren't facing the possibility of charges and arrest. As a possible defendant to *whatever* charges were coming, Zimmerman, to include his friends and family and attorneys speaking on his behalf, should have kept their mouths shut.

I don't disagree but... and I'm just guessing here... it may have had something to do with fucking lunatics like the NBP putting a price on Zimmerman's head that led to those who care about him coming out to put his side of the story.

 

[Emma]

Been reviewing a bit. I'm going to add Trajan to my list.

Emma
Paperview
Gawdag
Gadfy
Me D)
Uptownliving
Bigreb
Ravi
High_Gravity
Lockejaw
Trajan

Why am I not on this list? biatch.

lol

I think you'd be a good juror too.

There are a lot of people here who, although they have opinions on this case either way, would be able to put that aside and judge only on the fact presented.

 

[Emma]

It seemed to be fine and dandy when we had the Martin family, NBP, Sharpton et al running around screaming 'racism', and 'murder'.... but now it's an issue because people who know Zimmerman came out and tried to counter that ranting..... yea, that seems rational. Not.

Yes it is rational. They weren't facing the possibility of charges and arrest. As a possible defendant to *whatever* charges were coming, Zimmerman, to include his friends and family and attorneys speaking on his behalf, should have kept their mouths shut.

I don't disagree but... and I'm just guessing here... it may have had something to do with fucking lunatics like the NBP putting a price on Zimmerman's head that led to those who care about him coming out to put his side of the story.

True. But they were doing so before that happened. His father had written the letter to the paper (Sentinel?) before this even became such a big story. That his father and his ex-attorneys went on the media blitz as they did really does surprise me. This new attorney was handed a big mess to clean up after those two.

 

[California Girl]

Been reviewing a bit. I'm going to add Trajan to my list.

Emma
Paperview
Gawdag
Gadfy
Me D)
Uptownliving
Bigreb
Ravi
High_Gravity
Lockejaw
Trajan

Why am I not on this list? biatch.

lol

I think you'd be a good juror too.

There are a lot of people here who, although they have opinions on this case either way, would be able to put that aside and judge only on the fact presented.

I don't actually have an opinion on this particular case, I usually like to form an opinion based on all the facts, not just the media bullshit. The 'media' have been proved to be more than a tad unreliable in its reporting of this one... in fact, I'd go so far as to accuse them of creating the story rather than reporting it. Shame on them, and shame on anyone who repeats their crap as 'evidence'.

 

[Emma]

Zimmerman admits killing Martin. The only real point to clarify is was it self defense. Self defense requires the defendant to explain that. Interesting, in that most cases do require the prosecution to prove guilt. Here, self defense looks unlikely when the defendent won't explain. Most legal experts seem to agree with this.

Now what happens when you put the defendent on the stand? Lawyers do just about anything to avoid that normally. For good reason.

As a juror, I'd expect to hear the prosecution prove that it wasn't self-defense. I wouldn't need to hear from Zimmerman at all.

Zimmerman has a right to speak, if he so desires.

I never said otherwise. My point is that he has the absolute right NOT to testify at trial. I wouldn't expect him to do so, and my vote wouldn't be influenced by that.

 

[koshergrl]

That's because your mind is already made up.

I wouldn't put you on any jury on the face of the earth.

 

[Si modo]

Been reviewing a bit. I'm going to add Trajan to my list.

Emma
Paperview
Gawdag
Gadfy
Me D)
Uptownliving
Bigreb
Ravi
High_Gravity
Lockejaw
Trajan

Why am I not on this list? biatch.

Yes, you should be on the list and now that makes for a full jury!

But, man....gimme a break! You were out of town and slipped my mind.



Emma
Paperview
Gawdag
Gadfy
Me D)
Uptownliving
Bigreb
Ravi
High_Gravity
Lockejaw
Trajan
CG

Am I off the hot seat, now?

 

[Si modo]

he most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels (the only issue the court said the jury was free to decide, as the court deemed the truth or falsity of the statements to be irrelevant), the jury nonetheless returned a verdict of "Not Guilty."

Jury nullification appeared at other times in our history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws. In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act. In the mid 1800s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws. And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws.

More recent examples of nullification might include acquittals of "mercy killers," including Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and minor drug offenders.

Jury Nullification: History, questions and answers about nullification, links


its legal.....

Thanks, Bones. Good examples.

In this case and considering public opinion and the irresponsible press, any jury nullification seems like it would be in the direction to convict.

So a jury would have to ignore the law that acquits. I don't think I have seen that happen before.

Your examples are good, but they are examples of juries ignoring the law that would convict (or find liable), rather than the inverse - ignoring law that protects the defendant.