Jury Nullification. No, you don't have convict or follow "the law."

jack3

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2024
Messages
693
Reaction score
303
Points
143
Location
N Florida
The website is the Fully Informed Jury Association. I read it now & again. I have learned and understand the following.


A juror can vote his conscience. A juror doesn't have to convict, even if the defendant has "violated" a statute.​
A juror does not have to follow the judge's instruction to convict in accord with a statute.​
Jury nullification was, historically, a safeguard against bad statutes and ordinances. A 4th branch of government, if you will.​
 
The website is the Fully Informed Jury Association. I read it now & again. I have learned and understand the following.


A juror can vote his conscience. A juror doesn't have to convict, even if the defendant has "violated" a statute.​
A juror does not have to follow the judge's instruction to convict in accord with a statute.​
Jury nullification was, historically, a safeguard against bad statutes and ordinances. A 4th branch of government, if you will.​
That’s wickedly overstated.

In NY State a jury is told that if they conclude that the evidence supports a conviction (meaning the evidence provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to each element of a charged crime) that they MUST vote guilty on that charge.
 
That’s wickedly overstated.

In NY State a jury is told that if they conclude that the evidence supports a conviction (meaning the evidence provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to each element of a charged crime) that they MUST vote guilty on that charge.
Not true. They can negate the charge based on conscience. Jurors might think a statute or ordinance is unethical, frivolous, etc. There are many examples in the FIJA site and elsewhere. Check it out. 👍
 
Not true. They can negate the charge based on conscience. Jurors might think a statute or ordinance is unethical, frivolous, etc. There are many examples in the FIJA site and elsewhere. Check it out. 👍
Nothing whatsoever untrue in what I posted.

You can believe that Jurors don’t get charged by the judge on the law, but your belief would be baseless. They do.

And they do get very explicitly charged that if they have gotten at trial proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused that they “must” convict.

The specific portion of the charge reads as follows.

If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a charged crime, you must find the defendant not guilty of that crime. If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a charged crime, you must find the defendant guilty of that crime.
 
Last edited:
Nothing whatsoever untrue in what I posted.

You can believe that Jurors don’t get charged by the judge on the law, but your belief would be baseless. They do.

And they do get very explicitly charged that if they have gotten at trial proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused that they “must” convict.

The specific portion of the charge reads as follows.
Again, incorrect. Judges attempt to intimidate, but there is nothing they can do when a juror nullifies.
 
Historical example. Jurors often nullified prohibition laws in the 1920s because they thought laws against alcohol unjust.
 
Another example. Draft protest activists broke into a Camden NJ draft board office and destroyed thousands of documents. A jury had no doubt that the protestors committed the act, but they voted not guilty. It was because of growing sentiments against the Vietnam War.
 
Another historical example is that I first learned about jury nullification as a means to deny African Americans justice when crimes were committed against them especially in the south, during the Jim Crow and segregationist eras of the United States.
 
Again, incorrect. Judges attempt to intimidate, but there is nothing they can do when a juror nullifies.
I am again correct. That’s the legal charge I shared. It’s given by all judges in all criminal cases in NY.

Denying that fact doesn’t change anything, jackboot.
 
Another historical example is that I first learned about jury nullification as a means to deny African Americans justice when crimes were committed against them especially in the south, during the Jim Crow and segregationist eras of the United States.
I'm familiar with nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act. Jurors often nullified statutes that charged a defendant with not turning in an escaped slave.
 
In the United States, it is illegal for a judge to direct a jury that it must deliver a guilty verdict, jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts whatever their reasons may be, and a jury’s verdict of not guilty cannot be overturned.
...
...courts agree that jury nullification is a power that jurors have, that they cannot be punished for exercising it, and that Not Guilty verdicts cannot be overturned even if arrived at by way of conscientious acquittal.
 

If I conscientiously acquit, can I legally be punished?

66dd3cf3-b8ad-4335-b797-3cdd2208cde6.jpg

In short, it is not legal to punish a juror for their verdict. This well-established principle of trial by jury has been the case in the American legal system since its inception and, preceding it, English common law since Bushel's case in 1670.


 
"This [conscientious acquittal, aka, jury nullification] has been upheld in practice. Very rarely, there have been attempts made by displeased government officials such as judges or prosecutors to punish people who openly indicated they were considering conscientiously acquitting. We are aware of only two documented examples, which we will discuss below. Both cases ended with the government failing to make any sort of legal punishment stick. Moreover, both cases depended on jurors having openly discussed the possibility of conscientious acquittal with their fellow jurors—something that is easily avoided by simply voting your conscience without discussing your conscientious objections or the possibility of nullification."


 
It's funny how government uses 1984 terminology. They like to call it jury "duty." A person is legally obligated to show up with a jury summons, but stop using tard terms like "duty." It is not.
 
I got a jury summons a couple of years ago. I was going to make some excuse, but then I thought I'd go. I'd go with the intent of acquitting any guy with drug possession or patronizing hookers or whatever like that. So I shows up, but all the would be defendants already plea bargained. Sheesh.
 
Back
Top Bottom