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.
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
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.
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.
That makes them a jury of judges. Juries are supposed to find fact, not repeal law.
Ever heard of a nation of laws not of men? The jury'sjob is to apply the law - not to decide which laws should apply. You've got it backwards. By allowing juries to simply nullify laws as you see fit, you are making a nation of men, not of laws. No man is above the law in our system.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".
Your example is absurd, BTW, as traffic fines are not tried by jury.
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.
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.
It is all they are there for. That's their charge from the judge - to judge the facts, not to re-write the laws.
This is from the pattern jury instructions for the 5th circuit. (I is the judge)
http://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/img/icons/icon-pdf.png
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?
A jury member that ignores a judges instructions is in contempt of court.
That's absurd. Jury nullification will only result in men being placed above the law.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.
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.
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.
And? People get acquitted of murder all the time - does that mean murder is legal? I don't see your angle.
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.
This says it all. Anyone who disagrees with it is simply wrong.
Looks like both of you are deathly afraid of the common man, who might find your judicial oligarchy just another form of detached and self-important elitist tyranny.
Oh well...At least the battle lines are rather clearly drawn.
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.
This says it all. Anyone who disagrees with it is simply wrong.
Looks like both of you are deathly afraid of the common man, who might find your judicial oligarchy just another form of detached and self-important elitist tyranny.
Oh well...At least the battle lines are rather clearly drawn.
No one is "afraid of the common man," Oddball. Our system of laws provides that judges decide legal issues (they are, after all, trained to do that) and juries decide factual issues. Juries are not composed of legally trained people. They are competent to judge factual issues, but not legal issues.
And even if they were, the proper venue for repealing laws is the voting booth, not the jury room. A jury that renders a nullification verdict is, for the case involved, repealing the law on that case. To allow such is to allow anarchy, which is why it isn't allowed.
While I have you on the line here, I read your linked article on the Kriho case. You are correct - I had never heard of that case. I doubt that you will find very many attorneys who have. In any event, the article is disjointed, makes little sense and is full of mischaracterizations and quotes out of context. It puts me in mind of the tax nuts who claim that no one is legally required to pay income taxes.
One of the cases cited in the article for the proposition that jury nullification is legal (U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F2 1002), actually holds just the opposite. The Moylan case involved a group of people who destroyed government property because they felt they had a moral obligation to do so. Charged with destruction of government property, they were convicted and they appealed, claiming, among other things, that the trial judge should have informed the jury that it had the right to acquit them even if they were in fact guilty of the charge.
The refusal of the trial court to instruct the jury that it had the right to acquit even if the defendants were in fact guilty, was affirmed by the appellate court, as were the convictions of the defendants.
"Nowhere does the court intimate that the judge should not instruct the jury on the law, and nowhere does it hold, as appellants here contend, that the jury should be instructed that it may disregard the law as declared by the judge."
I know that you think your position on this is correct - I do not doubt your sincerity in this regard. But sincerity is not always tied to correct viewpoints. We have that situation here.
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.
This says it all. Anyone who disagrees with it is simply wrong.
We are simply right.
Looks like both of you are deathly afraid of the common man, who might find your judicial oligarchy just another form of detached and self-important elitist tyranny.
Oh well...At least the battle lines are rather clearly drawn.
No one is "afraid of the common man," Oddball. Our system of laws provides that judges decide legal issues (they are, after all, trained to do that) and juries decide factual issues. Juries are not composed of legally trained people. They are competent to judge factual issues, but not legal issues.
And even if they were, the proper venue for repealing laws is the voting booth, not the jury room. A jury that renders a nullification verdict is, for the case involved, repealing the law on that case. To allow such is to allow anarchy, which is why it isn't allowed.
While I have you on the line here, I read your linked article on the Kriho case. You are correct - I had never heard of that case. I doubt that you will find very many attorneys who have. In any event, the article is disjointed, makes little sense and is full of mischaracterizations and quotes out of context. It puts me in mind of the tax nuts who claim that no one is legally required to pay income taxes.
One of the cases cited in the article for the proposition that jury nullification is legal (U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F2 1002), actually holds just the opposite. The Moylan case involved a group of people who destroyed government property because they felt they had a moral obligation to do so. Charged with destruction of government property, they were convicted and they appealed, claiming, among other things, that the trial judge should have informed the jury that it had the right to acquit them even if they were in fact guilty of the charge.
The refusal of the trial court to instruct the jury that it had the right to acquit even if the defendants were in fact guilty, was affirmed by the appellate court, as were the convictions of the defendants.
"Nowhere does the court intimate that the judge should not instruct the jury on the law, and nowhere does it hold, as appellants here contend, that the jury should be instructed that it may disregard the law as declared by the judge."
I know that you think your position on this is correct - I do not doubt your sincerity in this regard. But sincerity is not always tied to correct viewpoints. We have that situation here.
Maybe I missed it, but can you tell me where in that decision it says that the jury can be held accountable for ignoring the instructions of the judge and deliberately acquitting someone who is obviously guilty?
Right...There's nothing that oligarchs detest more than the uppity unwashed citizens who pay their salaries.Jurors can be excused and/or a mistrial declared if the judge becomes aware that a nullification verdict is being considered. In certain, aggrevated circumstances, jurors can be cited and/or jailed for contempt.
If the judge finds out that a nullification verdict has been rendered after the actual rendition of the verdict, he can impose sanctions on the jurors involved. I did misspeak in an earlier post. Once the verdict is in, the judge cannot declare a mistrial, but he can cite the jurors involved for contempt.
Cite the law under which Laura Kriho was convicted.Looks like both of you are deathly afraid of the common man, who might find your judicial oligarchy just another form of detached and self-important elitist tyranny.
Oh well...At least the battle lines are rather clearly drawn.
No one is "afraid of the common man," Oddball. Our system of laws provides that judges decide legal issues (they are, after all, trained to do that) and juries decide factual issues. Juries are not composed of legally trained people. They are competent to judge factual issues, but not legal issues.
And even if they were, the proper venue for repealing laws is the voting booth, not the jury room. A jury that renders a nullification verdict is, for the case involved, repealing the law on that case. To allow such is to allow anarchy, which is why it isn't allowed.
While I have you on the line here, I read your linked article on the Kriho case. You are correct - I had never heard of that case. I doubt that you will find very many attorneys who have. In any event, the article is disjointed, makes little sense and is full of mischaracterizations and quotes out of context. It puts me in mind of the tax nuts who claim that no one is legally required to pay income taxes.
One of the cases cited in the article for the proposition that jury nullification is legal (U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F2 1002), actually holds just the opposite. The Moylan case involved a group of people who destroyed government property because they felt they had a moral obligation to do so. Charged with destruction of government property, they were convicted and they appealed, claiming, among other things, that the trial judge should have informed the jury that it had the right to acquit them even if they were in fact guilty of the charge.
The refusal of the trial court to instruct the jury that it had the right to acquit even if the defendants were in fact guilty, was affirmed by the appellate court, as were the convictions of the defendants.
"Nowhere does the court intimate that the judge should not instruct the jury on the law, and nowhere does it hold, as appellants here contend, that the jury should be instructed that it may disregard the law as declared by the judge."
I know that you think your position on this is correct - I do not doubt your sincerity in this regard. But sincerity is not always tied to correct viewpoints. We have that situation here.
This says it all. Anyone who disagrees with it is simply wrong.
We are simply right.
Here's the thing, QW - and then we are going to put it to rest. I do this for a living. I have tried almost 400 criminal jury trials in a legal career as a criminal defense lawyer that is now approaching 45 years. I know what the law is as it relates to the functions of judge and jury. I have drafted hundreds of jury instructions and sat there as they were being read to the jury. I have listened time and time again as reluctant jurors went throug voir dire and were told what their obligations as jurors were by the judge. I could go on and on.
The idea of jury nullification is an appealing one - but it is contrary to the requirements of the criminal justice system and it happens so seldom as to be worthy of any serious discussion.
You aren't stupid. You generally show very good sense in your treatment of issues here. Don't be taken in by the junk that exists on these jury nullification Web sites. That's all it is - junk.
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.
This says it all. Anyone who disagrees with it is simply wrong.
What your post says is that you studied law after such study was altered by Roscoe Pound and Christopher Columbus Langdell.
You were taught not to trust the people, in whom all power resides.
This has to be changed.
