State Adopts Jury Nullification Jurors Can Question Law

[Quantum Windbag]

It’s a tricky subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/nyregion/26jury.html

The only people that oppose jury nullification are people that think the state is all powerful.

Who has ever proposed such a law? Another straw man?

The straw man here is your argument, I never said anyone proposed such a law. That said, I can actually show you where people want to make jury nullification illegal, one example was already posted in this thread. That makes your position a double fail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/n...cation-case-against-julian-heicklen.html?_r=1

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It’s a tricky subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/nyregion/26jury.html

I don't understand what is tricky about it. Jury Nullification seems rather straightforward to me -- and I'm very pleased to learn the NH governor has taken this gutsy step. He deserves a lot of credit.

I believe the nullification capability is one of the most important components of the Common Law. It is the citizens' last bastion against emerging tyranny.

Am I missing something?

You are missing the fact that the fake lawyer Jones has no ability to think for himself, he actually thought that guy got in trouble for voting not guilty on a jury.

 

[MikeK]

Those who are not fully aware of what Jury Nullification is and why it is an extraordinarily important part of our legal system, and why government has seen fit to make it a crime to inform us about it, owe it to themselves and their fellow citizens to learn what it is.

It is very simple to understand and here is where to learn about it: Fully Informed Jury Association

If the American population was fully informed about Jury Nullification the overall quality of our society would improve dramatically overnight.

 

[whitehall]

I'm frankly puzzled about the apparent celebration for an application of the law that seems to be universal. I didn't see the part where jurors can find a verdict of not guilty if they disagree with the law as it is written. Is that true? I guess you get nut-cases in the jury pool who disagree with laws that they have to obey and if so it's easy for the prosecution to eliminate a juror from the pool if he/she disagrees with the Constitution or the state law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm frankly puzzled about the apparent celebration for an application of the law that seems to be universal. I didn't see the part where jurors can find a verdict of not guilty if they disagree with the law as it is written. Is that true? I guess you get nut-cases in the jury pool who disagree with laws that they have to obey and if so it's easy for the prosecution to eliminate a juror from the pool if he/she disagrees with the Constitution or the state law.

I'm frankly puzzled that idiots like you reply to threads when you have no understanding of the issues.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, it's been fun hanging together as a country. Adios USA!

 

[whitehall]

I'm frankly puzzled about the apparent celebration for an application of the law that seems to be universal. I didn't see the part where jurors can find a verdict of not guilty if they disagree with the law as it is written. Is that true? I guess you get nut-cases in the jury pool who disagree with laws that they have to obey and if so it's easy for the prosecution to eliminate a juror from the pool if he/she disagrees with the Constitution or the state law.

I'm frankly puzzled that idiots like you reply to threads when you have no understanding of the issues.

What is your understanding of the issue windy?

 

[whitehall]

The NH state motto is a bit extreme isn't it? Maybe they should change it to "live inexpensively or die"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm frankly puzzled about the apparent celebration for an application of the law that seems to be universal. I didn't see the part where jurors can find a verdict of not guilty if they disagree with the law as it is written. Is that true? I guess you get nut-cases in the jury pool who disagree with laws that they have to obey and if so it's easy for the prosecution to eliminate a juror from the pool if he/she disagrees with the Constitution or the state law.

I'm frankly puzzled that idiots like you reply to threads when you have no understanding of the issues.

What is your understanding of the issue windy?

I made my position clear in the thread, go read.

 

[whitehall]

I'm frankly puzzled that idiots like you reply to threads when you have no understanding of the issues.

What is your understanding of the issue windy?

I made my position clear in the thread, go read.

You posted an opinion by the NY Times. That's not an opinion windy, it's just passing wind.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is your understanding of the issue windy?

I made my position clear in the thread, go read.

You posted an opinion by the NY Times. That's not an opinion windy, it's just passing wind.

Damn, you are good, that wasn't my opinion.

Funny thing, I never said it was.

 

[MikeK]

I'm frankly puzzled about the apparent celebration for an application of the law that seems to be universal. I didn't see the part where jurors can find a verdict of not guilty if they disagree with the law as it is written. Is that true?

Yes, it is true.

If you are called to serve on a jury in a criminal trial, during the examination (voir dire) the prosecutor will ask if you know you are bound by law to render a verdict based on evidence alone excluding your own opinions or ideas (a declaration which is circumstantially true but fundamentally false.) The fact is laws have been written which intend to circumvent the jury's power to nullify a guilty verdict. And one may be prosecuted for violating these laws. But only if the juror is sufficiently uninformed as to admit disobeying these insidious laws.

If you are appointed to a jury, when the trial ends and it is time to deliberate the judge will address ("charge") the jury and will issue emphatic orders to deliberate on the basis of evidence alone and not personal opinions or feelings. But consider these circumstances:

A man's next-door neighbor rapes his teen-age daughter. The man goes next door with a gun and kills the rapist. The man is charged with second degree murder. You are a juror. Would you send him to prison? Or would you vote not guilty?

 

[George Costanza]

This is new? I always thought the jury reigned supreme and law be damned. I some really outrageous cases judges have declared a miscarriage of justice.

The problem is very few (almost none) jurors are aware of their right to nullify and the courts prohibit lawyers (or anyone else) from informing them of that right. In fact, a juror who knows what Nullification is and informs another juror of it can be prosecuted for doing so.

That in itself is tyrannical!

A jury does not have the right to to nullify the law. It has the power to do so, but it does not have the right. In fact, if a jury felt that someone was guilty on the facts, but voted not guilty just because they disagreed with the law. they (the jury) would be breaking the law.

 

[Oddball]

This is new? I always thought the jury reigned supreme and law be damned. I some really outrageous cases judges have declared a miscarriage of justice.

The problem is very few (almost none) jurors are aware of their right to nullify and the courts prohibit lawyers (or anyone else) from informing them of that right. In fact, a juror who knows what Nullification is and informs another juror of it can be prosecuted for doing so.

That in itself is tyrannical!

A jury does not have the right to to nullify the law. It has the power to do so, but it does not have the right. In fact, if a jury felt that someone was guilty on the facts, but voted not guilty just because they disagreed with the law. they (the jury) would be breaking the law.

If nullification isn't a juror's right, then why isn't Laura Kriho in prison?

 

[George Costanza]

Outstanding move on New Hampshire Governor John Lynch's part. One state down, 49 more to go.

Jury nullification, in which jurors refuse to convict defendants under laws they find objectionable or inappropriately applied, is a favored tactic of many libertarians who, rightly or wrongly perceive individual liberty as, at best, a minority taste among their neighbors. They like the idea of a tool that can be wielded on the spot to shield people from powerful control freaks without first having to win a popularity contest. But nullification is useful only if people know about it. And last week, New Hampshire's governor signed a law requiring the state's judges to permit defense attorneys to inform jurors of their right to nullify the law.

New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed HB 146 on June 18, 2012 - which reads:

"A right of accused. In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy."
US~Observer - New Hampshire legalizes jury nullification

Close, but no cigar. This is not a law authorizing jury nullification. Sorry.

 

[Oddball]

Outstanding move on New Hampshire Governor John Lynch's part. One state down, 49 more to go.

Jury nullification, in which jurors refuse to convict defendants under laws they find objectionable or inappropriately applied, is a favored tactic of many libertarians who, rightly or wrongly perceive individual liberty as, at best, a minority taste among their neighbors. They like the idea of a tool that can be wielded on the spot to shield people from powerful control freaks without first having to win a popularity contest. But nullification is useful only if people know about it. And last week, New Hampshire's governor signed a law requiring the state's judges to permit defense attorneys to inform jurors of their right to nullify the law.

New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed HB 146 on June 18, 2012 - which reads:

"A right of accused. In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy."
US~Observer - New Hampshire legalizes jury nullification

An absolutely fabulous site, that will educate you on the right of jurors to ignore laws they believe to be unjust and acquit.

Fully Informed Jury Association

.

 

[George Costanza]

The problem is very few (almost none) jurors are aware of their right to nullify and the courts prohibit lawyers (or anyone else) from informing them of that right. In fact, a juror who knows what Nullification is and informs another juror of it can be prosecuted for doing so.

That in itself is tyrannical!

A jury does not have the right to to nullify the law. It has the power to do so, but it does not have the right. In fact, if a jury felt that someone was guilty on the facts, but voted not guilty just because they disagreed with the law. they (the jury) would be breaking the law.

If nullification isn't a juror's right, then why isn't Laura Kriho in prison?

You have to understand the difference between having a right to do something and having the power to do something. I have the power to hit my neighbor in the nose for no reason at all. However, I do not have the right to do so.

I am not saying that jury nullification never happens. It does - considerably less than its proponents would like to think, but it does happen. But when it does, the jury that does it is breaking the law. Simple as that.

The trick to making jury nullification work is for the jurors to render thier verdict and then keep their mouths shut about what they did. THAT's how it works, when it does.

 

[Oddball]

A jury does not have the right to to nullify the law. It has the power to do so, but it does not have the right. In fact, if a jury felt that someone was guilty on the facts, but voted not guilty just because they disagreed with the law. they (the jury) would be breaking the law.

If nullification isn't a juror's right, then why isn't Laura Kriho in prison?

You have to understand the difference between having a right to do something and having the power to do something. I have the power to hit my neighbor in the nose for no reason at all. However, I do not have the right to do so.

I am not saying that jury nullification never happens. It does - considerably less than its proponents would like to think, but it does happen. But when it does, the jury that does it is breaking the law. Simple as that.

The trick to making jury nullification work is for the jurors to render thier verdict and then keep their mouths shut about what they did. THAT's how it works, when it does.

I don't give a shit about your disingenuous bullshit legalese parsing of semantics.

I have the right to vote my conscience, ignore bad law and vote to acquit, and other than screen for stupid jurors who don't know their asses from hot rocks during voir dire, there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is new? I always thought the jury reigned supreme and law be damned. I some really outrageous cases judges have declared a miscarriage of justice.

The problem is very few (almost none) jurors are aware of their right to nullify and the courts prohibit lawyers (or anyone else) from informing them of that right. In fact, a juror who knows what Nullification is and informs another juror of it can be prosecuted for doing so.

That in itself is tyrannical!

A jury does not have the right to to nullify the law. It has the power to do so, but it does not have the right. In fact, if a jury felt that someone was guilty on the facts, but voted not guilty just because they disagreed with the law. they (the jury) would be breaking the law.

There is no law that requires the jury to ignore their conscious.

 

[Oddball]

Jury rights are kryptonite to judicial oligarchs and other tyrants.