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.
I have been called for jury duty twice but as soon as the lawyer's realize that you might actually be capable of thinking for our self and will not take what they say as truth and actually make them prove the facts they use, they kick you off. They do not want thinkers.
I have been called for jury duty twice but as soon as the lawyer's realize that you might actually be capable of thinking for our self and will not take what they say as truth and actually make them prove the facts they use, they kick you off. They do not want thinkers.
Actually, the truth is that sometimes the lawyers on a case very much DO want people capable of elevated thinking and independent thought.
Depends on the "needs" of the case.
If a client SEEMS to be pretty plainly "guilty," but the "guilt" requires some element that is actually not there at all or very tenuous, then why the hell would his lawyer want anybody on the jury who is not able to make such fine distinctions? Some "defenses" require a bit of nuance, and in those cases, it's nice to have a bunch of intelligent, reasonable jurors.
The courts have managed over the years to impose rules which seek to nullify a jury's right to nullify. But the thing to consider here is the fact that most criminal trials involve offenses and offenders which and who do not inspire the wish to nullify obvious guilt. So the motivation to nullify is far less common than the thrust of this thread suggests.
If I were a juror in the trial of a person who was charged with growing marijuana and the evidence was overwhelming and irrefutable I would assert my intention to vote not guilty and I would do my best to impart my motivation to the other jurors without actually specifiying my intention to "nullify."
If I could not indirectly and implicitly convince the others to do the same I would settle for hanging the jury. And if the judge attempted to pigeonhole me as to my interpretation of the facts in the case I would begin by asking his honor why, if the facts in the case are so cut and dried, they need a jury. And if he chose to pursue the matter I would lead him on a roundabout that would rival the greatest fox hunt in the history of the British Empire -- the bottom line of which is the simple fact that my reasoning does not square with his and let him try to prove it does.
The bottom line is Nullification is a viable possibility. There needs to be a good reason to do it and it must be done cleverly and discreetly.
Although they could, the point of nullification is that the average person in the jury is smart enough to know that the laws against murder are just.
Surely you jest.Although they could, the point of nullification is that the average person in the jury is smart enough to know that the laws against murder are just.
Yep...the honorable thing to do if you feel strongly that a law is wrong is to bring it up when you are being interviewed.Although they could, the point of nullification is that the average person in the jury is smart enough to know that the laws against murder are just.
But if, for whatever reason, they believe the application of that law is unjust....?
That's when you start getting into the jurors' biases influencing the process.
No, I don't jest.....What are you trying to say?Surely you jest.Although they could, the point of nullification is that the average person in the jury is smart enough to know that the laws against murder are just.
That you've apparently never been on jury duty.No, I don't jest.....What are you trying to say?Surely you jest.Although they could, the point of nullification is that the average person in the jury is smart enough to know that the laws against murder are just.
Everyone has their own biases. I wouldn't doubt that some people when presented with a case of one person murdering another might feel for personal reasons that the murdered one somehow deserved it.Yes, I have.
Have you any reason to believe that the common men and women in those jury pools aren't smart enough to know that murder, rape, robbery and fraud are wrong?