Jury nullification wins over dumb law

[George Costanza]

Know what I find interesting about all this?

One would think, that conservatives would be opposed to so-called jury nullification. After all, it thwarts "justice" (i.e., prevents punishment from being imposed), sets obviously guilty people free and plays right into the hands of those scumbag defense lawyers.

Yet, it would appear, that quite a few of our conservative friends here are all for it.

Strange.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jury Nullification exists as a fact of life if not in the law.

We used it to protect Christian nonviolent activists from the unfair application of the law here.

We sent the kluckers who tried that to federal courts after acquittal in state courts.

Yup, it is a fact of life, and good and bad folks in America have used it.

 

[Oddball]

A major problem with your argument here is that you are limiting it to the cases of obviously objectionable laws, such as marijuana possession laws and third strike laws applied in the case of a minor, triggering offense. But if "jury nullification" had official sanction, it would mean that any juror would be free to throw a monkey wrench into any criminal trial, merely because he or she "didn't like" the particular law involved.

Juror No. 7 thinks the drunk driving laws are unfair because he feels he was unjustly convicted of DUI a number of years back. He knows the trial he is about to sit on will be a drunk driving case, so he fails to disclose his history on voir dire, just so he can "get back at" The System, by "nullifiying" the law in this particular case.

It doesn't take a genius to see why jury nullification is against the law. And while we're at it, was it you who was claiming that jury nullification is actually provided for in the constitutions of several states? Link, please.

If it's against the law, why aren't people working for Fully Informed Jury Association being arrested, tried and convicted for obstruction?

They're not, because it isn't.

But hey....You're a sworn officer of the court, so your role is to serve your masters first.

Much like that nut case organization that claims to have a justifiable, legally supportable argument that no one has to pay federal income taxes, the "Fully Informed Jury Association" is misinterpreting various constitutional phrases, case decisions and statutes in an attempt to justify the incorrect conclusion that jury nullification is somehow "recognized" and allowable under our judicial system.

I don't know what has happened, or will happen, to the members of this organization, but I know what will happen to a citizen called to jury duty, who attempts to implement their suggested course of action.

With the notable exception that quacks like Irwin Schiff have actually spent time behind bars for violating the law.

Like I said, Google "Laura Kriho" and point out to the class which law she was convicted of violating....In fact, I defy you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the problem was that the blood evidence was held and not logged in for hours by a cop who had a history of racism. that created doubt in the jury's minds.. particularly given the history of LAPD toward minorities. the prosecution was out of control and more concerned with how they looked to the cameras and more concerned with the affair they were having than their case. oj simpson was a hero to a lot of people and the prosecution needed to overcome thei jury's natural hesitation to find a hero guilty.

a criminal prosecution can't have that many holes in it. and you never, ever ask the defendant to put on a pair of gloves if you don't know they fit.

I have prepared dozens of murder cases for trial for defense lawyers. Respectfully, the race card IS NOT evidence of any kind. The prosecution was not out of control and never pandered to the cameras. The defense did that.
The gloves didn't fit because Simpson bent his fingers. Anyone can do that.
I do agree that the jury found him not guilty because he was a hero.
And that was absurd. DNA placed him at the crime scene. Enough to convict.

i'm not talking about just 'the race card'. i'm talking about the fact that the prosecution didn't do its job. and you know how bad it looked that they didn't log in the blood evidence when the jury was predisposed to disbeleive them anyway.

and the glove didn't fit because the blood dried and shrunk the leather... not because he bent his finger.

As i said, i'd have said not guilty. He was found guilty in the civil trial because there is a lesser standard of proof.

OJ, in my mind, was guilty.

He was exonerated because the police screwed up the investigation and then the prosecution screwed up in court the results of the screwed up investigation.

 

[jillian]

A major problem with your argument here is that you are limiting it to the cases of obviously objectionable laws, such as marijuana possession laws and third strike laws applied in the case of a minor, triggering offense. But if "jury nullification" had official sanction, it would mean that any juror would be free to throw a monkey wrench into any criminal trial, merely because he or she "didn't like" the particular law involved.

Juror No. 7 thinks the drunk driving laws are unfair because he feels he was unjustly convicted of DUI a number of years back. He knows the trial he is about to sit on will be a drunk driving case, so he fails to disclose his history on voir dire, just so he can "get back at" The System, by "nullifiying" the law in this particular case.

It doesn't take a genius to see why jury nullification is against the law. And while we're at it, was it you who was claiming that jury nullification is actually provided for in the constitutions of several states? Link, please.

If it's against the law, why aren't people working for Fully Informed Jury Association being arrested, tried and convicted for obstruction?

They're not, because it isn't.

But hey....You're a sworn officer of the court, so your role is to serve your masters first.

Much like that nut case organization that claims to have a justifiable, legally supportable argument that no one has to pay federal income taxes, the "Fully Informed Jury Association" is misinterpreting various constitutional phrases, case decisions and statutes in an attempt to justify the incorrect conclusion that jury nullification is somehow "recognized" and allowable under our judicial system.

I don't know what has happened, or will happen, to the members of this organization, but I know what will happen to a citizen called to jury duty, who attempts to implement their suggested course of action.

i'm thinking they'd wimp out if they actually faced contempt charges given they swear an oath to apply the law as instructed by the court. but don't confuse him with facts.

 

[Oddball]

You're also free to point out which law jurors violate when they vote their conscience.

But I'm not anticipating that the chattel property to the American legal oligarchy would find any evidence to dis on their masters.

 

[Oddball]

What's so great about this topic is that there's agreement on the side of jury rights across such a broad spectrum of historical figures.

Anti-federalist:

THOMAS JEFFERSON (1789): I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.​

Federalist:

JOHN ADAMS (1771): It's not only ....(the juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.​

First Chief Justice of the USSC:

JOHN JAY (1794): The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.​

Another Federalist:

ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge's instruction...."if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."​

Another USSC Justice:

SAMUEL CHASE (1804): The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.​

Even progressive avatars agree:

OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES (1920): The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts.​

 

[shintao]

They were asked if they would have a problem with convicting of possession if the accused had 1/16th of an ounce, not if they were willing to sit on a jury.

That is the first reason why jury's should not be questioned, outside of the basic, are you an American over 18 years of age. The idea that jurists can be "pre-qualified" to insure a pleasible verdict, is wrong, it is a waste of the courts time, and has nothing to do with justice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Voir dire, I think, has it's place, but the judge should limit the questions very narrowly.

 

[jillian]

They were asked if they would have a problem with convicting of possession if the accused had 1/16th of an ounce, not if they were willing to sit on a jury.

That is the first reason why jury's should not be questioned, outside of the basic, are you an American over 18 years of age. The idea that jurists can be "pre-qualified" to insure a pleasible verdict, is wrong, it is a waste of the courts time, and has nothing to do with justice.

but there are two attorney's asking questions. they are both trying to make the jury composition acceptable, so what ultimately happens, if they've both done their jobs, is that it's pretty even-handed.

i've found that most juries really try to do the right thing and most get it right, imo.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They were asked if they would have a problem with convicting of possession if the accused had 1/16th of an ounce, not if they were willing to sit on a jury.

That is the first reason why jury's should not be questioned, outside of the basic, are you an American over 18 years of age. The idea that jurists can be "pre-qualified" to insure a pleasible verdict, is wrong, it is a waste of the courts time, and has nothing to do with justice.

but there are two attorney's asking questions. they are both trying to make the jury composition acceptable, so what ultimately happens, if they've both done their jobs, is that it's pretty even-handed.

i've found that most juries really try to do the right thing and most get it right, imo.

And I see no reason that would change if juries understood the power of nullification and were free to use it. If the juries are capable of judging the facts they are equally capable of judging the law. In fact, if you ask me, the facts would almost always be the harder of those two tasks.

 

[jillian]

That is the first reason why jury's should not be questioned, outside of the basic, are you an American over 18 years of age. The idea that jurists can be "pre-qualified" to insure a pleasible verdict, is wrong, it is a waste of the courts time, and has nothing to do with justice.

but there are two attorney's asking questions. they are both trying to make the jury composition acceptable, so what ultimately happens, if they've both done their jobs, is that it's pretty even-handed.

i've found that most juries really try to do the right thing and most get it right, imo.

And I see no reason that would change if juries understood the power of nullification and were free to use it. If the juries are capable of judging the facts they are equally capable of judging the law. In fact, if you ask me, the facts would almost always be the harder of those two tasks.

because juries take an oath to find the facts as adduced from the evidence and FOLLOW THE LAW AS INSTRUCTED TO THEM BY THE COURT. That's why.

If they violate that oath, they are subject to sanctions.

what do you think nullification proves other than petulance and immaturity? and what law do you think you'd be compelled to nullify? if you don't like a law, write your congressman or councilman or state assemblyman or whomever is responsible for getting it changed.

you live within a certain system.

 

[Oddball]

The oath jurors take is irrelevant and not legally binding.

If it were legally and lawfully binding, Ms. Kriho would've been convicted for disobeying it.

But it isn't, so she wasn't even charged.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

but there are two attorney's asking questions. they are both trying to make the jury composition acceptable, so what ultimately happens, if they've both done their jobs, is that it's pretty even-handed.

i've found that most juries really try to do the right thing and most get it right, imo.

And I see no reason that would change if juries understood the power of nullification and were free to use it. If the juries are capable of judging the facts they are equally capable of judging the law. In fact, if you ask me, the facts would almost always be the harder of those two tasks.

because juries take an oath to find the facts as adduced from the evidence and FOLLOW THE LAW AS INSTRUCTED TO THEM BY THE COURT. That's why.

If they violate that oath, they are subject to sanctions.

what do you think nullification proves other than petulance and immaturity? and what law do you think you'd be compelled to nullify? if you don't like a law, write your congressman or councilman or state assemblyman or whomever is responsible for getting it changed.

you live within a certain system.

The system I live with supports jury nullification. Do you not understand that juries can, if they follow the instructions given them by the judge, only nullify when the law is egregious? Why is it that you do not understand how the system works if you are part of the system? Are you, like George, under the impression that jury nullification is totally illegal in the US, despite the fact that it is written into various state constitutions, and part of all jury instructions in two states?

If it works there, which it obviously does, why will it not work everywhere? How can you both think that juries get it right most of the time, and think that juries cannot get the law right?

 

[Oddball]

The system I live with supports jury nullification. Do you not understand that juries can, if they follow the instructions given them by the judge, only nullify when the law is egregious? Why is it that you do not understand how the system works if you are part of the system? Are you, like George, under the impression that jury nullification is totally illegal in the US, despite the fact that it is written into various state constitutions, and part of all jury instructions in two states?

If it works there, which it obviously does, why will it not work everywhere? How can you both think that juries get it right most of the time, and think that juries cannot get the law right?

It's because, as its sworn officers, they serve the court before all else....Even ahead of their paying clients.

Although a little known fact, factual nonetheless.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The oath jurors take is irrelevant and not legally binding.

If it were legally and lawfully binding, Ms. Kriho would've been convicted for disobeying it.

But it isn't, so she wasn't even charged.

I am in agreement with Oddball, Quantum Wind Bag et al on this subject. The American juror has a moral commitment to equity and justice, which transcends any oath, transcends the law as written. Any jury has the moral duty to be judge of law as well as fact, period, if the instruction as to law leads to a failure of equity. What judges and attorneys believe is immaterial to the juror committed to moral judgment.

 

[George Costanza]

The oath jurors take is irrelevant and not legally binding.

If it were legally and lawfully binding, Ms. Kriho would've been convicted for disobeying it.

But it isn't, so she wasn't even charged.

I am in agreement with Oddball, Quantum Wind Bag et al on this subject. The American juror has a moral commitment to equity and justice, which transcends any oath, transcends the law as written. Any jury has the moral duty to be judge of law as well as fact, period, if the instruction as to law leads to a failure of equity. What judges and attorneys believe is immaterial to the juror committed to moral judgment.

So if one juror's "moral commitment" compels him or her to vote not guilty merely because they disagree with the law of the case, that's OK.

Step back from that one for a second and take a long, hard look at it. If something like that was allowed, it would render our entire, criminal justice system potentially useless. One dishonest juror, who lied his way onto a jury, could subvert not only the "judges and attorneys," but also the entire state (or federal) legislature that had enacted the law in question.

Does that sound like a good idea to you? It doesn't to me. And it doesn't to the California Supreme Court either, which outlawed jury nullification in the 2001 case of People v. Cleveland.

 

[jillian]

The system I live with supports jury nullification. Do you not understand that juries can, if they follow the instructions given them by the judge, only nullify when the law is egregious? Why is it that you do not understand how the system works if you are part of the system? Are you, like George, under the impression that jury nullification is totally illegal in the US, despite the fact that it is written into various state constitutions, and part of all jury instructions in two states?

If it works there, which it obviously does, why will it not work everywhere? How can you both think that juries get it right most of the time, and think that juries cannot get the law right?

It's because, as its sworn officers, they serve the court before all else....Even ahead of their paying clients.

Although a little known fact, factual nonetheless.

you serve your ethical obligations first. is that a problem?

i've never yet met a single client worth losing my license for.

but the way i see it, you have no respect for government, you have no respect for the courts, you have no respect for the law, so the concept of jury nullification amuses you.

 

[George Costanza]

The system I live with supports jury nullification.

No, it doesn't. You just would like to think it does. If you feel so strongly about this point, then you should certainly be able to support your claim by providing a constitutional provision, a statute or a case from your "system," that legalizes jury nullification. Please do so.

Are you, like George, under the impression that jury nullification is totally illegal in the US, despite the fact that it is written into various state constitutions, and part of all jury instructions in two states?

Show me. Provide a link (or links) to the language you are referring to in the "various state constitutions" you are talking about. Quote from the jury instructions you claim contain language that allows the jury to disregard the law if they so desire.

How can you both think that juries get it right most of the time, and think that juries cannot get the law right?

Jurors do not have legal training, that is why they are not qualified to make legal decisions. The function of the jury is to decide the facts. The function of the judge is to decide issues of law. Quite often, the facts and the law overlap. When that happens, the judge gives a specific instruction, telling the jury how to apply the law to whatever facts they ultimately decide upon.

Tell me, QW - in this mythical world of yours where juries decide the law, what happens when twelve jurors are presented with an objection to the admissibility of evidence on the basis of a complicated and complex legal question? Not one of them has the slightest idea of the law involved or what the proper decision should be.

Upon what basis will that jury decide whether or not the evidence comes in?

 

[George Costanza]

The system I live with supports jury nullification. Do you not understand that juries can, if they follow the instructions given them by the judge, only nullify when the law is egregious? Why is it that you do not understand how the system works if you are part of the system? Are you, like George, under the impression that jury nullification is totally illegal in the US, despite the fact that it is written into various state constitutions, and part of all jury instructions in two states?

If it works there, which it obviously does, why will it not work everywhere? How can you both think that juries get it right most of the time, and think that juries cannot get the law right?

It's because, as its sworn officers, they serve the court before all else....Even ahead of their paying clients.

Although a little known fact, factual nonetheless.

Do yourself a favor, Oddball - don't offer up your opinion as "fact" when it concerns a subject matter about which you obviously know little to nothing. It only makes you look ridiculous.

While attorneys are indeed considered "officers of the court," this does not mean that they subvert the interests of their clients to the interests of the court. An attorney's PRIMARY duty is to his client, not to the court. An attorney acts as an officer of the court by doing whatever he/she can to assist the court SHORT OF compromising the interests of his/her client.