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.
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.
Sorry I stopped reading at "Nevertheless, the majority opinion held that jurors need not be told this."Wrong, yet again.My degree in physics does not alter the fact that juries consider questions of fact, judges consider questions of law.
Points, authorities and quotes:
http://fija.org/docs/BP_quotes_on_jury_authority_and_jury_nullification.pdf
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 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)
http://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/img/icons/icon-pdf.pngI 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.
Judges settle questions of law, juries questions of fact.
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 . . .
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.
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.
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.
We are not going to parse the word legal so that you get to declare that something is illegal just because some judge might take it into his head to abuse his power and punish me for doing it.
The concept of jury nullification as it exists in our Common Law derives from the Magna Carta and its purpose was back then, as it is now, to serve as the last bastion of defense against tyrannical authority. An example would be a common man who kills a corrupt and brutal official and is placed on trial. The evidence against the commoner is clear and undeniable but the jury of commoners is guided by conscience rather than legal facts. They pronounce a verdict of not guilty. The implication of that verdict would put the fear of God in corrupt officials. And that is the importance and the ultimate value of jury nullification.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.
No. You're supposed to be tried by a "jury of your peers" not a "jury of judges".Jury nullification results in unequal treatment under the law.
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".
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.
Judges often instruct juries that they are not supposed to judge the law. That does not change the fact that juries actually have the power to judge the law, and have even been instructed to do so by judges.
Sorry I stopped reading at "Nevertheless, the majority opinion held that jurors need not be told this."Wrong, yet again.
Points, authorities and quotes:
http://fija.org/docs/BP_quotes_on_jury_authority_and_jury_nullification.pdf
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.
No one is saying that the jury is not there to judge facts, what we are pointing out is that is not all they are there for, despite the fact that most judges want to take that power away from them.
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)
http://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/img/icons/icon-pdf.pngI 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.
Judges settle questions of law, juries questions of fact.
And? If the jury ignores that instruction, walks out into court, finds the defendant not guilty, and tells the judge that they ignored his instructions, will that change the verdict? Will the judge be able to throw the guy in prison because the jury ignored him?
If not, what does that do to your assertion that the role of the jury is not to judge the law?
That's absurd. Jury nullification will only result in men being placed above the law.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 . . .
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.
Believe it or not, there is already unequal treatment under the law. Just ask George how often his non rich clients go to jail for something rich clients get away with, or how often black clients get nailed for things white clients get away with. Jury nullification is a way rectify that.
No, no they're not.A jury member that ignores a judges instructions is in contempt of court.
Jurors are free people, not playthings of judicial oligarchs.
No, no they're not.A jury member that ignores a judges instructions is in contempt of court.
Laura Kriho was ultimately acquitted of any and all wrongdoing.
Voting to acquit because the jurors believe the law is unjust is not "making up law", by any stretch of lolberal imagination.
The mob you mean?Why are you so deathly afraid of the common man?
Jurors are free people, not playthings of judicial oligarchs.
Jurors do not get to make their own laws. They are charged by the judge to find fact and there are certain procedures they must follow. They may not consider testimony that has been stricken from the record - they may not discuss the case with one another until deliberations begin - they may not decide the person is guilty under the law but the law should not apply - all of these things are things they may be able to get away with - but it doesn't change the fact that isn't their job.
Their job is straightforward - do the facts of the case make the defendant under the law as written? yes or no. That's it.
There are plenty of checks against unjust laws - judges can be lenient in sentencing. Governors and Presidents may pardon or commute. These are checks that are allowed by the law. For a jury to nullify a law is for them to place themselves above the law.
