Jury nullification wins over dumb law

[George Costanza]

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.

"Judging the law" in what context? Would that include ruling on admissibility of evidence?

"Objection. Inadequate foundation." The judge turns to the foreperson of the jury. "Mr. Foreperson, how does the jury rule on this question? The foreperson, who is a plumber by trade, turns to the other eleven jurors. All he gets are 11 blank stares.

That what you're talking about here? You do see, I hope, how totally unworkable something like that would be.

Precisely what are you talking about when you say that a jury should be able to "judge the law"?

 

[George Costanza]

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

Jury Nullification

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

As I have already pointed out, it is a part of the required jury instructions in two states. I would think that more than proves it is both legal and constitutional. If it isn't the burden of proof lies with you.

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?

What about the link you provided in an attempt to prove that nullification is illegal?

American courts that have considered nullification have generally ruled against it. On the other hand, the constitutions of three states--Georgia, Indiana and Maryland--say that jurors should judge questions of law as well as fact.

Jury Nullification

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.

Yet the system expects them to judge complicated cases like the tobacco litigation that requires interpreting conflicting medical and expert testimony that makes figuring out if a law should exist look like grade school math in comparison.

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?

Now you are going way off track. Jury nullification is not about judging the admissibility of evidence, it is about preventing the government from writing laws that oppress the people. It might even stop the government from prosecuting people who are unaware of federal regulations, thus turning innocent people into criminals.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

"Judging the law" in what context? Would that include ruling on admissibility of evidence?

"Objection. Inadequate foundation." The judge turns to the foreperson of the jury. "Mr. Foreperson, how does the jury rule on this question? The foreperson, who is a plumber by trade, turns to the other eleven jurors. All he gets are 11 blank stares.

That what you're talking about here? You do see, I hope, how totally unworkable something like that would be.

Precisely what are you talking about when you say that a jury should be able to "judge the law"?

There is a difference between what a judge does in interpreting the rules of evidence and what a jury does in determining whether charging a young woman with a couple of marijuana seeds with a crime that will result in a felony criminal conviction, a permanent loss of civil rights, and the loss of a very promising young doctor or scientist. Jury nullification is not about judging the admissibility of evidence and/or testimony, it is about delivering justice by making sure that the law is administered sensibly, and that no one ends up with a life sentence after three strikes for stealing a candy bar.

 

[MikeK]

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.

There was a time in America when a negro who refused to comply with the Jim Crow laws would be sent to the chain gang if convicted.

Imagine that you and I are jurors during that era and I said to you, I don't think this man is guilty and that's how I intend to vote (wink, wink). What would you say to me?

Let me put it in another inch: What if the law held that Jews were required by law to wear a yellow star and a jew who failed to comply was prosecuted. If the facts were the Jew didn't wear his star, would you vote to convict?

Both are examples which existed in modern history and there is absolutely no reason to assume the same or similar things could not happen again. So please confine your answers to the boundaries of the hypothesis. I've asked you valid questions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

George, a juror's highest obligation is his conscience, not how a judge rules on law. I guarantee you half of your jury members at any given time are doing their own research and really have no intention of following you into Pied Piper land if they disagree.

So do your job to the best of your ability and pray the jury members are doing the same.

 

[jillian]

George, a juror's highest obligation is his conscience, not how a judge rules on law. I guarantee you half of your jury members at any given time are doing their own research and really have no intention of following you into Pied Piper land if they disagree.

So do your job to the best of your ability and pray the jury members are doing the same.

a juror's obligation is to advise the court if his/her own biases prevent him from applying the law as required.

 

[jillian]

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.

There was a time in America when a negro who refused to comply with the Jim Crow laws would be sent to the chain gang if convicted.

Imagine that you and I are jurors during that era and I said to you, I don't think this man is guilty and that's how I intend to vote (wink, wink). What would you say to me?

Let me put it in another inch: What if the law held that Jews were required by law to wear a yellow star and a jew who failed to comply was prosecuted. If the facts were the Jew didn't wear his star, would you vote to convict?

Both are examples which existed in modern history and there is absolutely no reason to assume the same or similar things could not happen again. So please confine your answers to the boundaries of the hypothesis. I've asked you valid questions.

what a load of horse hockey...

please save it for someone who believes it...

but be sure to let me know when they pass a law requiring me to wear a yellow star.

although even for that... THAT is what the constitution exists for and, presumably i'd be out pending my appeal all the way up through the supreme court.

see how the process works? you either respect it or you don't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

George, a juror's highest obligation is his conscience, not how a judge rules on law. I guarantee you half of your jury members at any given time are doing their own research and really have no intention of following you into Pied Piper land if they disagree.

So do your job to the best of your ability and pray the jury members are doing the same.

a juror's obligation is to advise the court if his/her own biases prevent him from applying the law as required.

So says the law, but no man's conscience is bound by law.

 

[jillian]

George, a juror's highest obligation is his conscience, not how a judge rules on law. I guarantee you half of your jury members at any given time are doing their own research and really have no intention of following you into Pied Piper land if they disagree.

So do your job to the best of your ability and pray the jury members are doing the same.

a juror's obligation is to advise the court if his/her own biases prevent him from applying the law as required.

So says the law, but no man's conscience is bound by law.

you're not 'listening'. no one says you have to violate your conscience. you DO, however, have to disclose your biases.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jillian, I know what the law says, but my conscience tells me that as a juror my duty is to justice and a fair trial. I will judge alone if my biases exclude me. If I judge that is so, sure, I will so notify the court. However, I am the final judge of my conscience and my duties.

 

[George Costanza]

Jillian, I know what the law says, but my conscience tells me that as a juror my duty is to justice and a fair trial. I will judge alone if my biases exclude me. If I judge that is so, sure, I will so notify the court. However, I am the final judge of my conscience and my duties.

No problem. Just never sit on any criminal (or civil) jury with that kind of mindset.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

"Judging the law" in what context? Would that include ruling on admissibility of evidence?

"Objection. Inadequate foundation." The judge turns to the foreperson of the jury. "Mr. Foreperson, how does the jury rule on this question? The foreperson, who is a plumber by trade, turns to the other eleven jurors. All he gets are 11 blank stares.

That what you're talking about here? You do see, I hope, how totally unworkable something like that would be.

Precisely what are you talking about when you say that a jury should be able to "judge the law"?

There is a difference between what a judge does in interpreting the rules of evidence and what a jury does in determining whether charging a young woman with a couple of marijuana seeds with a crime that will result in a felony criminal conviction, a permanent loss of civil rights, and the loss of a very promising young doctor or scientist. Jury nullification is not about judging the admissibility of evidence and/or testimony, it is about delivering justice by making sure that the law is administered sensibly, and that no one ends up with a life sentence after three strikes for stealing a candy bar.

Interpreting rules of evidence is very much deciding issues of law. You earlier made a blanket statement to the effect that if juries are capable of judging the facts, they are equally capable of judging the law.

Now you are apparently backing off a tad. So the jurors are capable of judging the law insofar as approving or not approving of a statute (based upon their sound, legal knowledge), but when it comes to using that same "sound legal knowledge" to decide whether or not evidence may be admitted, then we'll leave it to the judge.

At this point, you remind me of a Christian Scientist with appendicitis.

 

[George Costanza]

Let me ask all of you jury nullification experts a question here . . .

I get it that you think nullifying possession of marijuana laws is OK. How do you feel about a death penalty opponent who brings a capital murder case to a total halt by voting not guilty in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt?

Or someone whose favorite uncle is doing time for a child molestation he never committed. This juror is convinced that the child molestation laws are abused with regularity, so when he finds himself on the jury in a child molestation case, he votes not guilty in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt. I would assume y'all would have no problem with that one either, right?

See where your jury nullification nonsense can lead?

 

[MikeK]

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.

Because the essence of jury nullification is response to conscience, the answer to your question must depend on what the defendant is charged with. So please give us some specifics.

 

[George Costanza]

George, a juror's highest obligation is his conscience, not how a judge rules on law. I guarantee you half of your jury members at any given time are doing their own research and really have no intention of following you into Pied Piper land if they disagree.

So do your job to the best of your ability and pray the jury members are doing the same.

Jurors who "do their own research" are violating the law. Jurors are specifically instructed they are NOT to do their own research, and are to consider only evidence that comes to them from the witness stand, in open court during the trial.

Jurors who "have no intention" of following the law as it is given to them by the judge, have no business being on any jury.

As Jillian has accurately pointed out several times, if a juror knows that the case he is about to sit upon as a juror involves a law he disagrees with, he is bound to report that fact to the court and counsel during voir dire (jury selection). A failure to do so renders that juror liable for contempt of court charges if his lie is discovered.

You folks talk so much about "conscience" on this jury nullification issue. Where is a juror's "conscience" when he knowingly conceals his intention to engage in nullification during jury selection? What kind of bull shit is that?

No juror would ever be allowed to sit on a jury if they disclosed during jury selection that they disagreed with the law, and intended to vote not guilty no matter what the evidence disclosed. If the judge did not kick them off, the prosecutor sure would.

So what are we left with? That jurors who end up actually sitting on a jury when the intended to engage in nullification prior to being seated, have to be, by definition, liars.

Conscience? Oh - I forget. I guess that's something we can forget about when the end justifies the means.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

Because the essence of jury nullification is response to conscience, the answer to your question must depend on what the defendant is charged with. So please give us some specifics.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...ication-wins-over-dumb-law-4.html#post3125616

BTW - Merry Christmas, Mike! I may not be back on here for a day or so.

 

[MikeK]

Let me ask all of you jury nullification experts a question here . . .

I get it that you think nullifying possession of marijuana laws is OK. How do you feel about a death penalty opponent who brings a capital murder case to a total halt by voting not guilty in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt?

That would depend on the reason the defendant committed the murder.

If I were called for jury duty I would breeze through any voir dire because I fully understand the purpose of that process and I resent it. And if I were seated in the trial of a man who murdered another man who had raped his wife or daughter, I would do my best to impart my bias to the other jurors (without leaving myself open for contempt charges) and under no circumstances would I vote to convict. I would insist that I disagree with all the evidence and I would vote to acquit.

And my attitude where anything you might have to say about the majesty of the Law is, quite simply, fuck the Law! The Law is your game, so go on and play it. I believe the rapist deserved to be killed and I don't want to hear any bloviation about what a wonderful legal system we have because I know better. Our legal system is at best a circus.

 

[MikeK]

George, a juror's highest obligation is his conscience, not how a judge rules on law. I guarantee you half of your jury members at any given time are doing their own research and really have no intention of following you into Pied Piper land if they disagree.

So do your job to the best of your ability and pray the jury members are doing the same.

Jurors who "do their own research" are violating the law. Jurors are specifically instructed they are NOT to do their own research, and are to consider only evidence that comes to them from the witness stand, in open court during the trial.

Jurors who "have no intention" of following the law as it is given to them by the judge, have no business being on any jury.

As Jillian has accurately pointed out several times, if a juror knows that the case he is about to sit upon as a juror involves a law he disagrees with, he is bound to report that fact to the court and counsel during voir dire (jury selection). A failure to do so renders that juror liable for contempt of court charges if his lie is discovered.

You folks talk so much about "conscience" on this jury nullification issue. Where is a juror's "conscience" when he knowingly conceals his intention to engage in nullification during jury selection? What kind of bull shit is that?

No juror would ever be allowed to sit on a jury if they disclosed during jury selection that they disagreed with the law, and intended to vote not guilty no matter what the evidence disclosed. If the judge did not kick them off, the prosecutor sure would.

So what are we left with? That jurors who end up actually sitting on a jury when the intended to engage in nullification prior to being seated, have to be, by definition, liars.

Conscience? Oh - I forget. I guess that's something we can forget about when the end justifies the means.

George,

What do you think the American legal system is, the Holy Kingdom of God and you are some kind of priest? Come off it. How many lawyers and judges do you know who deserve to be in prison? The fact is you belong to a cult the stock-in-trade of which is its esoteric language and while you might still be starry-eyed, innocent and real proud of your membership, you should know that the legal profession is not generally known for its ethics and honesty. You need to understand that not everyone is as impressed by you as you are with yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Judging the law" in what context? Would that include ruling on admissibility of evidence?

"Objection. Inadequate foundation." The judge turns to the foreperson of the jury. "Mr. Foreperson, how does the jury rule on this question? The foreperson, who is a plumber by trade, turns to the other eleven jurors. All he gets are 11 blank stares.

That what you're talking about here? You do see, I hope, how totally unworkable something like that would be.

Precisely what are you talking about when you say that a jury should be able to "judge the law"?

There is a difference between what a judge does in interpreting the rules of evidence and what a jury does in determining whether charging a young woman with a couple of marijuana seeds with a crime that will result in a felony criminal conviction, a permanent loss of civil rights, and the loss of a very promising young doctor or scientist. Jury nullification is not about judging the admissibility of evidence and/or testimony, it is about delivering justice by making sure that the law is administered sensibly, and that no one ends up with a life sentence after three strikes for stealing a candy bar.

Interpreting rules of evidence is very much deciding issues of law. You earlier made a blanket statement to the effect that if juries are capable of judging the facts, they are equally capable of judging the law.

Now you are apparently backing off a tad. So the jurors are capable of judging the law insofar as approving or not approving of a statute (based upon their sound, legal knowledge), but when it comes to using that same "sound legal knowledge" to decide whether or not evidence may be admitted, then we'll leave it to the judge.

At this point, you remind me of a Christian Scientist with appendicitis.

I can interpret the rules of evidence, they are not that difficult, that does no t make it my job. The reason the judge is tasked with judging the admissibility of evidence is so that the existence of prejudicial evidence that does not meet admissibility standards does not prejudice the jury about the guilt of the defendant, not because it is too hard for them to apply clear cut standards and determined if it is legally admissible.

Each person in that courtroom has a job, and the job of the jury is, ultimately, to administer justice. Everyone else in that courtroom is there to make sure the jury has the information it needs to accomplish that. The prosecution is there to present the states case against the defendant. The defense is there to advocate for the defendant and give him a voice. The judge is there to make sure the rules are followed, and make sure the prosecution does not cheat. If the system is set up to prevent the jury from understanding its role it is ultimately unfair and prejudicial to the defense, and prevents them from getting a fair trial.

I have never backed off from my position, you just assumed that because I believe the jury can do something it should. If we let the jury interpret the rules of evidence we wouldn't need a judge. I believe we do need judges.

I am not the person who is blinded by faith here George, just think about that.