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.
If nullification isn't a juror's right, then why isn't Laura Kriho in prison?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.
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.
Exactly! Americans have 3 Votes:Jury rights are kryptonite to judicial oligarchs and other tyrants.
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.
If there was a law against jury nullification juries would be prosecuted whenever they did it. No jury has ever been prosecuted for his vote on a case, even when they flat out said they did it because they thought the law was always wrong.
Google Laura Kriho, you lazy ass.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.
If there was a law against jury nullification juries would be prosecuted whenever they did it. No jury has ever been prosecuted for his vote on a case, even when they flat out said they did it because they thought the law was always wrong.
There is not a law, per se, against jury nullification, but as I think you well know, juries are instructed by the judge not to consider legal issues and to base their verdict solely on the facts. If the judge finds out that the jury did not do that, and rendered a not guilty verdict that should otherwise have been guilty merely because they disagreed with the law involved, the jury members could be jailed for disobeying the judge's instructions.
I would like to see some corroboration of your statement that no juror has ever been prosecuted for engaging in jury nullification and admitting that he did so.
The critical question is how would anyone know why a juror voted not guilty?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.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.
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.
What? The Judge doesn't instruct the Jury how to decide, that's Jury Tampering and the Judge HIMSELF could be arrested. The Bailiff isn't just there to keep Defendants from trashing the place you know.There is not a law, per se, against jury nullification, but as I think you well know, juries are instructed by the judge not to consider legal issues and to base their verdict solely on the facts. If the judge finds out that the jury did not do that, and rendered a not guilty verdict that should otherwise have been guilty merely because they disagreed with the law involved, the jury members could be jailed for disobeying the judge's instructions.
I would like to see some corroboration of your statement that no juror has ever been prosecuted for engaging in jury nullification and admitting that he did so.
The way it is now a jury HAS to convict if the person broke the law, no matter what the law is.
Example.
Say a State has a law that says people under 5 feet tall must ride at the back of the Bus. Ms. Shirly Shortcake is arrested for sitting in the front of the bus. The judge instructs the Jury to find only if the Defendant violated the Law, thus guaranteeing her conviction and sentencing to jail.
Unbeknownst to most Jurors they have the Power of "Jury Nullification" which is the ability to find a defendant not guilty if they believe a Law is unjust, even if that defendant is absolutely guilty in a Court of Law.
If Juries understood this and started finding people not guilty for certain crimes like Drug Possession then guess what? The State won't spend any more time trying them because they won't get convicted!
This is how Americans fight back against unjust Laws that our elected officials foist upon us.
The critical question is how would anyone know why a juror voted not guilty?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.
The NH law specifies that "the jury has the right to judge the facts and the application of the law". How is that any different from any other court of law?
Judges and prosecutors hate the very thought of jury nullification because it in fact nullifies their power. Nullification is the jury saying fuck you to the prosecutor and it reduces the authority of a judge to that of a referee.
It threatens them and really pisses them off.
Wrong! Jury Nullification goes back to Founding of this Country.This completely redefines what a jury is. It is now no longer a fact finding body - its a law writing body.
Finding a person "Not guilty" is NOT Writing Law.
Finding a person Not Guilty because the Law is stupid is NOT Writing Law.
It's Jury Nullification of that Law!
Do you know why people like Oopoopahdoo are angry? Because in a Jury Trial we can find a person Not Guilty for not paying his or her ObamaCare fine!
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.
If there was a law against jury nullification juries would be prosecuted whenever they did it. No jury has ever been prosecuted for his vote on a case, even when they flat out said they did it because they thought the law was always wrong.
There is not a law, per se, against jury nullification, but as I think you well know, juries are instructed by the judge not to consider legal issues and to base their verdict solely on the facts. If the judge finds out that the jury did not do that, and rendered a not guilty verdict that should otherwise have been guilty merely because they disagreed with the law involved, the jury members could be jailed for disobeying the judge's instructions.
I would like to see some corroboration of your statement that no juror has ever been prosecuted for engaging in jury nullification and admitting that he did so.
The critical question is how would anyone know why a juror voted not guilty?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 there was a law against jury nullification juries would be prosecuted whenever they did it. No jury has ever been prosecuted for his vote on a case, even when they flat out said they did it because they thought the law was always wrong.
There is not a law, per se, against jury nullification, but as I think you well know, juries are instructed by the judge not to consider legal issues and to base their verdict solely on the facts. If the judge finds out that the jury did not do that, and rendered a not guilty verdict that should otherwise have been guilty merely because they disagreed with the law involved, the jury members could be jailed for disobeying the judge's instructions.
I would like to see some corroboration of your statement that no juror has ever been prosecuted for engaging in jury nullification and admitting that he did so.
Yes, juries are instructed to ignore the fact that their decisions have moral repercussions. However, if they chose to ignore that instruction, for whatever reason, it is perfectly legal, and not even a judge that wants to make an example of said jury by holding them in contempt can do a damn thing about it. If you can find one iota of case law that contradicts me in that feel free to post it and prove me wrong.
You seem to think that your duty, as an officer of the court, to uphold the law, even if you think it is wrong,somehow binds the jury that reaches the same conclusion. I would love to see you explain that one.
The NH law specifies that "the jury has the right to judge the facts and the application of the law". How is that any different from any other court of law?
It isn't. In a criminal jury trial, the judge decides matters of law and the jury decides matters of fact. The jury is instructed to this effect, and is told that their verdict must be based soley upon the evidence presented during the trial (i.e., the facts) and not upon any other consideration such as pity, prejudice, etc. or their interpretation of the law or legal issues involved in the case.
In theory, there is such a thing as jury nullification. It could happen. But it hardly ever does because, by in large, juries take their instructions seriously and base their verdicts on the evidence, rather than their own, personal opinions as to the law involved.
I have personally tried close to 400 criminal jury trials over the span of my legal career. In TWO of those trials, I felt we might have had a chance at jury nullification. Didn't come close in either one. In my lengthy career as a public defender. I have never heard any of my colleagues say that they received a jury nullification verdict.
Look - I'm a public defender. We LOVE not guilty verdicts. I wish jury nullifciation went on all the time. The fact is, it doesn't.
Judges and prosecutors hate the very thought of jury nullification because it in fact nullifies their power. Nullification is the jury saying fuck you to the prosecutor and it reduces the authority of a judge to that of a referee.
It threatens them and really pisses them off.
It changes the role of the jury entirely is what it does. I suppose if a jury decides its Ok for whites to hang blacks for any reason they like, they can just nullify the murder trials.
You don't even know what the role of the jury is.Judges and prosecutors hate the very thought of jury nullification because it in fact nullifies their power. Nullification is the jury saying fuck you to the prosecutor and it reduces the authority of a judge to that of a referee.
It threatens them and really pisses them off.
It changes the role of the jury entirely is what it does. I suppose if a jury decides its Ok for whites to hang blacks for any reason they like, they can just nullify the murder trials.
It does not change the role of the jury, even when they do something as abhorrent of letting a white man off for killing a black man.
