State Adopts Jury Nullification Jurors Can Question Law

[signelect]

I don't want a jury deciding if a law is ok or not. Lawyers don't want and informed jury, they want to tell the jury what the law is and how they should decide. When I have been called for jury duty it has been made clear they don't want an independent thinker.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That's not the same as a defense attorney instructing the jury its their job to consider moral issues. It isn't. Its their job to find fact. Period.

No, it is their job to apply the law. Take the example of William Lynch, a young man who actually got on the stand and admitted that he hit the man he was accused of hitting by the state. He was found not guilty, because the man he hit was the same man that prosecutors admit molested him as a child. The jury apparently decided that, given the circumstances, that Lynch was justified in hitting him.

Tell me that you, as a human being, would not have applied your moral judgment to the law and found him not guilty so I can call you a liar in addition to calling you stupid.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

That's not the same as a defense attorney instructing the jury its their job to consider moral issues. It isn't. Its their job to find fact. Period.

No, it is their job to apply the law. Take the example of William Lynch, a young man who actually got on the stand and admitted that he hit the man he was accused of hitting by the state. He was found not guilty, because the man he hit was the same man that prosecutors admit molested him as a child. The jury apparently decided that, given the circumstances, that Lynch was justified in hitting him.

Tell me that you, as a human being, would not have applied your moral judgment to the law and found him not guilty so I can call you a liar in addition to calling you stupid.

I didn't sit on that jury so I can't tell you how I would vote.
You still don't know the purpose of a jury.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You don't even know what the role of the jury is.

If the role of the jury were not to judge the law then we wouldn't have convoluted legal decisions that require juries to apply community standards when defining pornography in criminal trials, would we?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

You don't even know what the role of the jury is.

If the role of the jury were not to judge the law then we wouldn't have convoluted legal decisions that require juries to apply community standards when defining pornography in criminal trials, would we?

Juries settle questions of fact - judges settle questions of law. This is law school 101.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You don't even know what the role of the jury is.

If the role of the jury were not to judge the law then we wouldn't have convoluted legal decisions that require juries to apply community standards when defining pornography in criminal trials, would we?

Juries settle questions of fact - judges settle questions of law. This is law school 101.

You have been to law school now? Are you dropping your claim to be an astrophysicist? If not, don't pretend you know what law school 101 is.

 

[Oddball]

State language on jury nullification.

http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_state_language_on_jury_nullification.pdf

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If the role of the jury were not to judge the law then we wouldn't have convoluted legal decisions that require juries to apply community standards when defining pornography in criminal trials, would we?

Juries settle questions of fact - judges settle questions of law. This is law school 101.

You have been to law school now? Are you dropping your claim to be an astrophysicist? If not, don't pretend you know what law school 101 is.

My degree in physics does not alter the fact that juries consider questions of fact, judges consider questions of law.

 

[Oddball]

Juries settle questions of fact - judges settle questions of law. This is law school 101.

You have been to law school now? Are you dropping your claim to be an astrophysicist? If not, don't pretend you know what law school 101 is.

My degree in physics does not alter the fact that juries consider questions of fact, judges consider questions of law.

Wrong, yet again.

Points, authorities and quotes:

http://fija.org/docs/BP_quotes_on_jury_authority_and_jury_nullification.pdf

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You have been to law school now? Are you dropping your claim to be an astrophysicist? If not, don't pretend you know what law school 101 is.

My degree in physics does not alter the fact that juries consider questions of fact, judges consider questions of law.

Wrong, yet again.

Points, authorities and quotes:

http://fija.org/docs/BP_quotes_on_jury_authority_and_jury_nullification.pdf

Sorry I stopped reading at "Nevertheless, the majority opinion held that jurors need not be told this."
LOL!

A bunch of quotes doesn't alter the role of the jury as a fact finding body.


Jury nullification also violates equal protection under the law.

 

[Oddball]

My degree in physics does not alter the fact that juries consider questions of fact, judges consider questions of law.

Wrong, yet again.

Points, authorities and quotes:

http://fija.org/docs/BP_quotes_on_jury_authority_and_jury_nullification.pdf

Sorry I stopped reading at "Nevertheless, the majority opinion held that jurors need not be told this."
LOL!

A bunch of quotes doesn't alter the role of the jury as a fact finding body.


Jury nullification also violates equal protection under the law.

So, you're willfully ignorant and going to appeal to that ignorance as your angle.

You're dismissed.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Wrong, yet again.

Points, authorities and quotes:

http://fija.org/docs/BP_quotes_on_jury_authority_and_jury_nullification.pdf

Sorry I stopped reading at "Nevertheless, the majority opinion held that jurors need not be told this."
LOL!

A bunch of quotes doesn't alter the role of the jury as a fact finding body.


Jury nullification also violates equal protection under the law.

So, you're willfully ignorant and going to appeal to that ignorance as your angle.

You're dismissed.

The first two of those quotes are DISSENTING opinions. Do you know what a DISSENTING opinion is? Its the one that LOST.


There's a big difference from the de-facto independence that juries enjoy - and allowing defense attorneys to plead with them to throw out the law. Their job is to find fact. The fact they might decide a higher law prevents them from doing that job is irrelevant.

Juries can also de-facto consider evidence the judge has instructed they disregard - do you suppose we should allow defense attorneys to tell juries they don't have to follow any of the judge's instructions? Why even have a judge then?

 

[Oddball]

So what?

You g'head and tell us all what charge Laura Kriho was convicted of in this recent case: http://www.dvmen.org/Cases/96CR91_1Nieto_Kriho.htm

C'mon...Dazzle us with your alleged knowledge of the law.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So what?

You g'head and tell us all what charge Laura Kriho was convicted of in this recent case: http://www.dvmen.org/Cases/96CR91_1Nieto_Kriho.htm

C'mon...Dazzle us with your alleged knowledge of the law.

You tell us.

 

[Oddball]

Just tell us "I got nothing" and move along....'Cause you got nothing.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So what?

You g'head and tell us all what charge Laura Kriho was convicted of in this recent case: http://www.dvmen.org/Cases/96CR91_1Nieto_Kriho.htm

C'mon...Dazzle us with your alleged knowledge of the law.

This is from the pattern jury instructions for the 5th circuit. (I is the judge)

I will decide which rules of law apply to this case, in response to questions or objections raised by the attorneys as we go along, and also in the final instructions given to you after the evidence and arguments are completed. You must follow the law as I explain it to you whether you agree with it or not.

You, and you alone, are judges of the facts. Therefore, you should give careful attention to
the testimony and exhibits, because based upon this evidence you will decide whether the
government has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant has committed the crime(s) charged in the indictment. You must base that decision only on the evidence in the case and my instructions about the law. You will have the exhibits with you when you deliberate.

http://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/img/icons/icon-pdf.png

Judges settle questions of law, juries questions of fact.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Just tell us "I got nothing" and move along....'Cause you got nothing.

Pattern instructions from 1st circuit

It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence admitted in this case. To those
facts you must apply the law as I give it to you. The determination of the law is my
duty as the presiding judge in this court. It is your duty to apply the law exactly as I
give it to you, whether you agree with it or not. You must not be influenced by any
personal likes or dislikes, prejudices or sympathy. That means that you must decide
the case solely on the evidence before you and according to the law. You will recall
that you took an oath promising to do so at the beginning of the case.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...14HgBQ&usg=AFQjCNHB4TzzSudor8HTy2jdX-jXfVKEJA

 

[George Costanza]

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.

No it is NOT "perfectly legal" if a jury chooses to ignore a judge's instruction. We seem to be dancing around this term, "legal" in the context of this discussion. You apparently think that because there is no express, criminal statute which prohibits jury nullification, it is, therefore, "legal" for juries to do it. OK - if you want to make that the test, then yes, it is "legal" in that sense. But you are conveniently overlooking (1) instructions given to the jury by the judge and (2) the sanctions available to the judge if those instructions are not followed.

The inside of a jail cell doesn't really care whether you got there for violating an express statute or a judge's instruction - it's still the inside of a jail cell.

Where on earth did you get the idea that if a judge becomes aware that his instructions were ignored by the jury and a nullification verdict was rendered, there is "not a damn thing he can do about it." There sure is. He can declare a mistrial and throw the entire jury into jail for contempt of court.

The operative phrase there is "becomes aware." Sure, if a jury renders a nullification verdict and no one breaks under questioining from the judge and cops out to the real reason for the verdict, then I suppose there wouldn't be anything he could do. But, as I mentioned in a previous post, it is highly unlikely that anything like that would ever happen.

You have any verification of your statement that no juror has ever been sactioned for engaging in jury nullification and admitting he did so? I didn't see that anywhere in your response here . . .

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.

I don't think the instructions which prohibit juries from considering the law are wrong. I agree with them. We don't need juries undoing laws by rendering nullification verdicts. If you don't like the law, get it repealed. As long as it's on the books, right or wrong, it's the law. Encouraging jury nullification verdicts is a step torward anarchy.

What would I do if I felt a jury had rendered a not guilty, nullification verdict in favor of my client? Nothing. When it comes to a conflict between my duty to my client and my duty as an officer of the court, the former almost always wins out.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

No it is NOT "perfectly legal" if a jury chooses to ignore a judge's instruction. We seem to be dancing around this term, "legal" in the context of this discussion. You apparently think that because there is no express, criminal statute which prohibits jury nullification, it is, therefore, "legal" for juries to do it. OK - if you want to make that the test, then yes, it is "legal" in that sense. But you are conveniently overlooking (1) instructions given to the jury by the judge and (2) the sanctions available to the judge if those instructions are not followed.

The inside of a jail cell doesn't really care whether you got there for violating an express statute or a judge's instruction - it's still the inside of a jail cell.

Where on earth did you get the idea that if a judge becomes aware that his instructions were ignored by the jury and a nullification verdict was rendered, there is "not a damn thing he can do about it." There sure is. He can declare a mistrial and throw the entire jury into jail for contempt of court.

The operative phrase there is "becomes aware." Sure, if a jury renders a nullification verdict and no one breaks under questioining from the judge and cops out to the real reason for the verdict, then I suppose there wouldn't be anything he could do. But, as I mentioned in a previous post, it is highly unlikely that anything like that would ever happen.

You have any verification of your statement that no juror has ever been sactioned for engaging in jury nullification and admitting he did so? I didn't see that anywhere in your response here . . .

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.

I don't think the instructions which prohibit juries from considering the law are wrong. I agree with them. We don't need juries undoing laws by rendering nullification verdicts. If you don't like the law, get it repealed. As long as it's on the books, right or wrong, it's the law. Encouraging jury nullification verdicts is a step torward anarchy.

What would I do if I felt a jury had rendered a not guilty, nullification verdict in favor of my client? Nothing. When it comes to a conflict between my duty to my client and my duty as an officer of the court, the former almost always wins out.

Jury nullification results in unequal treatment under the law. Two defendants can be accused of the same crime and each have the same level of evidence showing they did it - but one gets off because he catches a nullifying jury.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Jury nullification results in unequal treatment under the law.

No. You're supposed to be tried by a "jury of your peers" not a "jury of judges".

If the law is unjust and/or applied improperly, the local populace/jurors have a duty to find the defendant not guilty.

You ever heard of "Spirit and Intent" of a Law?

Example: Person is ticketed for doing 36 in a 35 zone. Technically he is in violation of the law but he is within the "spirit and intent" of the law by driving within a few miles of the posted limit.

If I was a juror in that trial I'd find the Defendant "Not Guilty".