State Adopts Jury Nullification Jurors Can Question Law

[Oddball]

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.

i see a lot of words there, PC.. .no meaning, but lots of words.

Speaking of meaningless words, tell us which law Laura Kriho violated and when she was convicted for her crime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You should read the dissent in Renico v Lett. I tend to agree that it takes a pretty strange ability to ignore the constitution to be able to read the 5th Amendment and allow the government another shot at a conviction just because the judge is upset that the state might lose.

Bloomberg Law - Document - Renico v. Lett, 130 S. Ct. 1855, 176 L. Ed. 2d 678 (2010), Court Opinion

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.

Yes, he can, and higher courts can step in and reverse the sanctions. Feel free to point out any examples of a jury being held in contempt for nullifying a law that were not reversed by a higher court. Every example I have found has been of them being overturned.

 

[jillian]

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.

You should read the dissent in Renico v Lett. I tend to agree that it takes a pretty strange ability to ignore the constitution to be able to read the 5th Amendment and allow the government another shot at a conviction just because the judge is upset that the state might lose.

Bloomberg Law - Document - Renico v. Lett, 130 S. Ct. 1855, 176 L. Ed. 2d 678 (2010), Court Opinion

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.

Yes, he can, and higher courts can step in and reverse the sanctions. Feel free to point out any examples of a jury being held in contempt for nullifying a law that were not reversed by a higher court. Every example I have found has been of them being overturned.

you know that a dissent has no legal authority, right?

 

[jillian]

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.

i see a lot of words there, PC.. .no meaning, but lots of words.

Speaking of meaningless words, tell us which law Laura Kriho violated and when she was convicted for her crime.

she wasn't acquitted because jury nullification, which is essentially contempt of court, is ok. she was acquitted because the appellate court said that the questions asked of her weren't specific enough to result in a charge of contempt.

i'm sure the jurors in mississippi who let kkk lunchers go free would agree with your views on jury nullification, though.

 

[Oddball]

IOW, she was acquitted.

There was never any question as to whether voting her conscience was unlawful, as she freely admitted doing so...Hence, no legal sanction for doing so...Not even the contempt of court charge held up.

Ergo, nullification is both lawful and legal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You should read the dissent in Renico v Lett. I tend to agree that it takes a pretty strange ability to ignore the constitution to be able to read the 5th Amendment and allow the government another shot at a conviction just because the judge is upset that the state might lose.

Bloomberg Law - Document - Renico v. Lett, 130 S. Ct. 1855, 176 L. Ed. 2d 678 (2010), Court Opinion

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.

Yes, he can, and higher courts can step in and reverse the sanctions. Feel free to point out any examples of a jury being held in contempt for nullifying a law that were not reversed by a higher court. Every example I have found has been of them being overturned.

you know that a dissent has no legal authority, right?

You know that it sometimes does, don't you?

 

[George Costanza]

Strange thing, you have not presented one iota of evidence that we are wrong. You keep pointing to your personal experience, and acting like it proves you are right.

When I get the time, I will hunt down the California Criminal Jury Instruction on the relative duties of judge and jury. Until then, you are simply going to have to either accept my personal experience or not. I am certainly not lying about what my personal experience on this point has been.

I have never once denied that judges are free not to tell juries that they can nullify. I will even admit that judges actually have the power to tell juries that they cannot nullify, and that all they can do is determine the facts.

Yes, judges "actually have the power" to tell juries they cannot nullify. In fact, it would be reversible error if they failed to do so.

None of that changes the fact that juries have the power to nullify if they chose to do so, and that, ultimately, any juror that does so will walk out of court completely free.

I have never disagreed with this statement. It is totally correct. And the reason it is totally correct is that you have used the word "power" and not the word, "right." Of course a jury has the power to find someone not guilty who clearly is guilty, just because they disagree with the law. But they do not have the RIGHT to do that - and that's the important difference.

And, yes - provided they don't get caught at it, they will never be sanctioned for rendering such a verdict in much the same way that a person who never gets caught committing a murder will never be punished for it.

The problem I am having with the arguments presented on this thread in favor of nullification is that those arguing for it seem to think that juries have the legal RIGHT to nullification, which they clearly do NOT have. I think you and I may not be that far apart on this issue, provided we limit our area of agreement to the POWER of the jury to nullify and the lack of sanctions provided they don't get caught doing it.

Even if a judge actually takes it into his, or her, head to hold a juror who successfully advocates the jury to nullify a law they will always be overturned on appeal. Always.

You a betting man, QW?

Then we have absolute evidence that juries actually do find people not guilty, even when the judge instructs them specifically that all they can do is find on the facts and the defendant admits during the trial that he actually committed the crime he is charged with. That happened right here in California just last month despite the argument form the prosecutor that no one is above the law, and that anyone who breaks the law should be held accountable. The prosecutor even quoted John Adams during the closing arguments. This was despite the fact that Adams actually argued that jurors have a duty to decide the case according to his own best understanding and conscious.

William Lynch's Jury to Decide His Fate - Los Gatos, CA Patch

Let me check this out - I'll get back to you.

The simple fact that you are wrong that juries are placing themselves above the law if they decide to nullify. Juries are a constitutional right, they are part of the law, they can no more be above the law than anyone who is part of the criminal justice system who is not using the system to oppress others. As far as I am concerned, the only way a jury can be above the law is if they vote to convict someone even though they believe the person is not guilty.

I will argue with anyone who doesn't understand that.

We were doing fine until this. This is what I was talking about earlier. No, juries do NOT have the right to nullify. Juries ARE placing themselves about the law if they decide to nullify. Yes, juries are a constitutional right - but within certain well defined and long accepted rules of the conduct of criminal trials, rules which say that juries decide facts and judges decide legal issues.

Your closing sentence here is probably the best argument you could put forward for the illegality of jury nullification. You say that, in your opinion, the only way a jury could be above the law is if they convicted someone even though they believed he was innocent. Yes, that would be a jury being "above the law." And the defendant would be getting screwed there, wouldn't he?

Well, what's the difference? In the not guilty nullification verdict, the prosecution is getting screwed just as badly as the defense is getting screwed in the guilty verdict situation you suggest. In BOTH cases, the jury is ignoring the law. In BOTH cases, the jury is being "above the law."

If it benefits the defendant, that's OK - they aren't being "above the law," but if it benefits the prosecution, that's not OK and the jury IS being "above the law," that about it?
The answer is, jury nullification is not legally permissible, regardless of who benefits and who is harmed by the verdict.

Juries have the POWER to nullify. They do not have the RIGHT to do so.

 

[George Costanza]

i see a lot of words there, PC.. .no meaning, but lots of words.

Speaking of meaningless words, tell us which law Laura Kriho violated and when she was convicted for her crime.

she wasn't acquitted because jury nullification, which is essentially contempt of court, is ok. she was acquitted because the appellate court said that the questions asked of her weren't specific enough to result in a charge of contempt.

i'm sure the jurors in mississippi who let kkk lunchers go free would agree with your views on jury nullification, though.

It's like trying to convince a rabid, female bear that you are only trying to help her cub down from the tree limb, Jillian.

 

[Oddball]

IOW, you cannot tell anyone what law Kriho was convicted of breaking, because there isn't one.

But thanks for the haughty condescension....You are a crackerjack at that.

 

[George Costanza]

IOW, you cannot tell anyone what law Kriho was convicted of breaking, because there isn't one.

But thanks for the haughty condescension....You are a crackerjack at that.

What do you do, you strange, little creep - monitor this thread on a 24-hour basis?

 

[Oddball]

"New Posts" and "Subscribed Threads", numbnutz.

Grow up.

 

[George Costanza]

Then we have absolute evidence that juries actually do find people not guilty, even when the judge instructs them specifically that all they can do is find on the facts and the defendant admits during the trial that he actually committed the crime he is charged with. That happened right here in California just last month despite the argument form the prosecutor that no one is above the law, and that anyone who breaks the law should be held accountable. The prosecutor even quoted John Adams during the closing arguments. This was despite the fact that Adams actually argued that jurors have a duty to decide the case according to his own best understanding and conscious.

William Lynch's Jury to Decide His Fate - Los Gatos, CA Patch

I read your link. I think you need to take another look at it. This is a newspaper article that covers closing arguments made to a jury prior to their deliberations and verdict. It says nothing about what the actual verdict was, much less why it was rendered or what the jury was thinking. This is merely a case where the prosecutor was afraid the jury might engage in nullification and was telling them in her closing argument (very competently, by the way) why they are not legally allowed to do so.

If anything, your linked article is one of the best pieces I have read setting forth the reasons AGAINST jury nullification.

Thanks.

 

[George Costanza]

"New Posts" and "Subscribed Threads", numbnutz.

Grow up.

Why don't you just take your insults and clearly uninformed opinions on this subject to some other thread? All you are doing is stinking up this one and getting in the way of any serious discussion.

Thank you very much.

 

[Oddball]

Blow it out your ass.

My opinions are based upon the vaunted and holy "case law" that all you lolberal oligarchs tout every time it supports your positions.

The Kriho case clearly shows that nobody is breaking any law by voting their conscience in the jury box.

I know it thoroughly chaps your ass to have to recognize that the mere unwashed hoi polloy has power in the courtroom, but there it is.

 

[George Costanza]

Blow it out your ass.

My opinions are based upon the vaunted and holy "case law" that all you lolberal oligarchs tout every time it supports your positions.

The Kriho case clearly shows that nobody is breaking any law by voting their conscience in the jury box.

I know it thoroughly chaps your ass to have to recognize that the mere unwashed hoi polloy has power in the courtroom, but there it is.

I have never argued that the "mere unwashed hoi polloy (sic)" (your term, not mine) does not have the POWER to render a nullification verdict. You seem to confuse "power" with "legal right." The latter, they do not have.

 

[Oddball]

Fully Informed Jury Association

Go ahead....Sue them...I defy you.

 

[George Costanza]

Fully Informed Jury Association

Go ahead....Sue them...I defy you.

Excellent! Thanks so much for this informative Web site. Here - I have one that is equally as informative for you. Check it out.

It's official, Elvis lives - Telegraph

The Elvis site is just about as informative and correct as your "Fully Informed Jury Association" Web site. If you want another of the same ilk, Google around for the sites which will tell you why the U.S. income tax is illegal and why you don't have to pay.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

"Judicial oligarchy" ? That's something you favor, not me. I place juries below the law - you place them above.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

That makes them a jury of judges. Juries are supposed to find fact, not repeal law.

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".

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.


Your example is absurd, BTW, as traffic fines are not tried by jury.

If you repeat a lie often enough, it is still a lie.

"no man is above the law" is a lie? I've heard it all.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Refusing to convict a person for hitting the priest that molested him as a child is not rewriting the law.

It is if the facts of the case fit the elements of the crime as defined by the law.