Jury nullification wins over dumb law

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Voire dire George, what do you think it is for?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

How would I know I intended to engage in nullification? Nullification comes when I know all the facts, which includes the charge, what the defendant actually did, and what the government is trying to do. this not an across the board attempt to take away the right of the government to prosecute anyone who is guilty, it serves as a check on the government to make sure they do not have unlimited power to lock up anyone who disagrees with them, like Siobhan Reynolds.

 

[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.

How would I know I intended to engage in nullification? Nullification comes when I know all the facts, which includes the charge, what the defendant actually did, and what the government is trying to do. this not an across the board attempt to take away the right of the government to prosecute anyone who is guilty, it serves as a check on the government to make sure they do not have unlimited power to lock up anyone who disagrees with them, like Siobhan Reynolds.

In the first place, all potential jurors are carefully informed of all the charges at the commencement of jury selection. There is a reason for that. The court (judge) and the attorneys, want to know how the prospective jurors feel about the law - for the precise reason of excluding any potential juror who might "have a problem" enforcing the particular charges or, conversely, who might "have a problem" finding someone not guilty of the particular charges.

Thus far, QW, we have been discussing the issue in the context of jury nullification based on a dissatisfaction with the law, as opposed to factual jury nullification, which is an entirely different breed of cat.

Let's stick to legal jury nullification for the moment. How would you know you intended to nullify the charge before you knew what the charge was? You wouldn't. But you would be informed of the charge prior to the start of jury selection. Let's say you are an ardent opponent of the marijuana laws. You sit down in the courtroom and are informed that this case will involve possession of marijuana charges. Seems to me you might have a pretty good idea at that point, about what you would do if you got on the jury.

Factual jury nullification is where a juror has no problem with the law, but votes not guilty because he thinks that, on the facts presented, that would be the "right thing to do," even though the facts clearly show the defendant is guilty. One of the best homicide lawyers in our office recently said, in a homicide seminar: There are only two, main questions in any murder case. (1) Did the victim deserve to die and (2) Was the defendant the right man for the job? He was being facetious, of course, but the fact remains that, in many murder cases, these questions do weigh heavily.

As I have mentioned earlier, in the course of my career, I have probably had four or five cases where I hoped that the jury might find my client not guilty even though he clearly was, on the basis that he was obviously getting screwed, the victim was a real jerk, etc.

It never happened. And it has never happened to any other lawyer I have ever talked with about the subject. Why? Because jurors take their instructions very, very seriously. I have had a juror come up to me afterwords and tell me, "Sorry we had to do that." He was, in effect, telling me that if jury nullification was allowed, and they had not been instructed to follow the law and apply that law to the facts without regard for sympathy for either side, they wold have acquitted my client.

That was a good juror.

 

[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?

Voire dire George, what do you think it is for?

I don't "think" what voir dire is for - I KNOW what voir dire is for. To select fair and impartial jurors.

Not quite sure what you are getting at here. If the system works the way it should, any potential juror who is thinking about nullification, or is even capable of nullification, should so notify both counsel and the court, so that they can then make a decision as to what they want to do about it.

As an aside, I once had a former juror on a murder case of mine, come up to me two years after the verdict. He ran into me on the street by accident and recognized me. After we chatted for a while, I asked him what the single, most important thing was the jury relied upon in convicting the defendant. He said: "The defendant was Mexican. The dead guy was Mexican. Those people kill each other."

After three years of motions, vigorously opposed by the prosecution (if you can believe that), we I was finally able to get a new trial for the defendant. The reason? This juror was obviously racially prejudiced, and he had concealed that fact on voir dire.

I did not do the retrial. Second time around, they hung. Third time around, he was convicted of murder two. He had been convicted of murder one at the first trial.

 

[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,

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.

I have seriously misjudged you. Sorry to have to say that.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

As I have mentioned earlier, in the course of my career, I have probably had four or five cases where I hoped that the jury might find my client not guilty even though he clearly was, on the basis that he was obviously getting screwed, the victim was a real jerk, etc.

It never happened. And it has never happened to any other lawyer I have ever talked with about the subject. Why? Because jurors take their instructions very, very seriously. I have had a juror come up to me afterwords and tell me, "Sorry we had to do that." He was, in effect, telling me that if jury nullification was allowed, and they had not been instructed to follow the law and apply that law to the facts without regard for sympathy for either side, they wold have acquitted my client.

That was a good juror.

That was a sheep.

Have you ever watched some of the late-night infomercials that hype such things as hair growth formulas and tablets that are guaranteed to make your penis larger? Samples of these these miraculous products are offered free -- except for the "shipping and handling" charge, which is probably around eight to ten dollars.

It doesn't take a Mensan I.Q. to figure out that these scammers are hawking fifteen cents worth of placebo, which will cost them another eighty-five cents to package and mail and will net them at least five bucks a pop from every stupid bastard who falls for their hustles. Yet these cons have been playing on late night tv for as long as I can remember. And I would wager a pension check that your "good juror" is among their customers and is still waiting for his dick to get bigger.

 

[George Costanza]

[...]

As I have mentioned earlier, in the course of my career, I have probably had four or five cases where I hoped that the jury might find my client not guilty even though he clearly was, on the basis that he was obviously getting screwed, the victim was a real jerk, etc.

It never happened. And it has never happened to any other lawyer I have ever talked with about the subject. Why? Because jurors take their instructions very, very seriously. I have had a juror come up to me afterwords and tell me, "Sorry we had to do that." He was, in effect, telling me that if jury nullification was allowed, and they had not been instructed to follow the law and apply that law to the facts without regard for sympathy for either side, they wold have acquitted my client.

That was a good juror.

That was a sheep.

Have you ever watched some of the late-night infomercials that hype such things as hair growth formulas and tablets that are guaranteed to make your penis larger? Samples of these these miraculous products are offered free -- except for the "shipping and handling" charge, which is probably around eight to ten dollars.

It doesn't take a Mensan I.Q. to figure out that these scammers are hawking fifteen cents worth of placebo, which will cost them another eighty-five cents to package and mail and will net them at least five bucks a pop from every stupid bastard who falls for their hustles. Yet these cons have been playing on late night tv for as long as I can remember. And I would wager a pension check that your "good juror" is among their customers and is still waiting for his dick to get bigger.

Let's continue this discussion tomorrow when you sober up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I reserve my moral and ethical right to substitute my God-given sense of fair play and justice for that of any judge.

I believe the adversarial system we have often denies justice.

 

[George Costanza]

This just in! This (Christmas) morning's L.A. Times contains a front page article entitled, "Juries Are Giving Pot Defendants a Pass." I strongly suggest that anyone interested in this topic, read this article in its entirety and then we can discuss:

Marijuana, pot: Juries are giving pot defendants a pass - latimes.com

Be sure and not the entire context of the article, however - the headline is very misleading. The article covers situations where jurors are disclosing their unwillingness to convict a defendant of possession of pot BEFORE being seated on the jury, i.e., during voir dire. Note also that these same jurors are not allowed to sit on the jury; they are excused for cause, which is the proper procedure.

In other words, these are honest jurors.

 

[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.

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.

I have no respect for elitist oligarchs and tyrants, and their toady apologists.

 

[Oddball]

This just in! This (Christmas) morning's L.A. Times contains a front page article entitled, "Juries Are Giving Pot Defendants a Pass." I strongly suggest that anyone interested in this topic, read this article in its entirety and then we can discuss:

Marijuana, pot: Juries are giving pot defendants a pass - latimes.com

Be sure and not the entire context of the article, however - the headline is very misleading. The article covers situations where jurors are disclosing their unwillingness to convict a defendant of possession of pot BEFORE being seated on the jury, i.e., during voir dire. Note also that these same jurors are not allowed to sit on the jury; they are excused for cause, which is the proper procedure.

In other words, these are honest jurors.

IOW, they're screening for people who know their rights and excluding them.....As oligarchs and tyrants everywhere grin and applaud.

 

[jillian]

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.

I have no respect for elitist oligarchs and tyrants, and their toady apologists.

as i said...

no matter what meaningless words you assign to it.

 

[MikeK]

This just in! This (Christmas) morning's L.A. Times contains a front page article entitled, "Juries Are Giving Pot Defendants a Pass." I strongly suggest that anyone interested in this topic, read this article in its entirety and then we can discuss:

Marijuana, pot: Juries are giving pot defendants a pass - latimes.com

Be sure and not the entire context of the article, however - the headline is very misleading. The article covers situations where jurors are disclosing their unwillingness to convict a defendant of possession of pot BEFORE being seated on the jury, i.e., during voir dire. Note also that these same jurors are not allowed to sit on the jury; they are excused for cause, which is the proper procedure.

In other words, these are honest jurors.

Those are honest citzens who didn't know better. Their disqualification reveals the need for FIJA.

And I'm curious to know why, as a supposed defense attorney, you are so uptight about the possible presence of a prospective nullifier on a jury, which would facilitate your purpose. Are you some naive, frustrated, reborn Diogenes -- which seems to be the impression you're trying to convey here? Or are you really a prosecutor and don't wish to admit it?

But looking for honesty in the American legal system? Who are you trying to fool here? Yourself?

 

[MikeK]

Let's continue this discussion tomorrow when you sober up.

If ad hominem was the best you could do you should have passed rather than show your hand.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In the first place, all potential jurors are carefully informed of all the charges at the commencement of jury selection. There is a reason for that. The court (judge) and the attorneys, want to know how the prospective jurors feel about the law - for the precise reason of excluding any potential juror who might "have a problem" enforcing the particular charges or, conversely, who might "have a problem" finding someone not guilty of the particular charges.

Thus far, QW, we have been discussing the issue in the context of jury nullification based on a dissatisfaction with the law, as opposed to factual jury nullification, which is an entirely different breed of cat.

Let's stick to legal jury nullification for the moment. How would you know you intended to nullify the charge before you knew what the charge was? You wouldn't. But you would be informed of the charge prior to the start of jury selection. Let's say you are an ardent opponent of the marijuana laws. You sit down in the courtroom and are informed that this case will involve possession of marijuana charges. Seems to me you might have a pretty good idea at that point, about what you would do if you got on the jury.

Factual jury nullification is where a juror has no problem with the law, but votes not guilty because he thinks that, on the facts presented, that would be the "right thing to do," even though the facts clearly show the defendant is guilty. One of the best homicide lawyers in our office recently said, in a homicide seminar: There are only two, main questions in any murder case. (1) Did the victim deserve to die and (2) Was the defendant the right man for the job? He was being facetious, of course, but the fact remains that, in many murder cases, these questions do weigh heavily.

As I have mentioned earlier, in the course of my career, I have probably had four or five cases where I hoped that the jury might find my client not guilty even though he clearly was, on the basis that he was obviously getting screwed, the victim was a real jerk, etc.

It never happened. And it has never happened to any other lawyer I have ever talked with about the subject. Why? Because jurors take their instructions very, very seriously. I have had a juror come up to me afterwords and tell me, "Sorry we had to do that." He was, in effect, telling me that if jury nullification was allowed, and they had not been instructed to follow the law and apply that law to the facts without regard for sympathy for either side, they wold have acquitted my client.

That was a good juror.

The example I posted to start this thread was exactly what you are describing. The potential jurors were asked if they could convict someone felony possession of less than 1/16th of an ounce, and most of them answered honestly and said no, so many that it was impossible to actually seat a jury. What exactly is your problem with that again? Where did they violate any oaths or not listen to the sacred jury instructions.

Where I get hung up in voire dire is when a judge asks me if I would make a decision based solely on his instructions. I once got threatened with contempt charges when I answered no to that, and when asked for clarification honestly answered that it would depend on what those instructions would be. If he instructed me to do something that I believed was immoral or illegal I would ignore those instructions, which is why I refuse to answer questions like that until I know all the facts.

I always answer the questions I am asked honestly, I advise everyone to do the same. That does not obligate me to sit up there and state that I am opposed to certain laws if I am not asked. Nor does it tell me that the state is attempting to prosecute someone for something that, when applied to them, is actually a political crime and not a criminal one.

Maybe if more people who understood the concept, and were willing to vote their conscience instead of blindly following the instructions of judges who think that they have the power to force verdicts that are morally wrong, you might occasionally see people who are guilty but shouldn't be in prison released.

BTW, that guy was not a good juror, he was a good slave. There is a significant difference between the two.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Voire dire George, what do you think it is for?

I don't "think" what voir dire is for - I KNOW what voir dire is for. To select fair and impartial jurors.

Not quite sure what you are getting at here. If the system works the way it should, any potential juror who is thinking about nullification, or is even capable of nullification, should so notify both counsel and the court, so that they can then make a decision as to what they want to do about it.

As an aside, I once had a former juror on a murder case of mine, come up to me two years after the verdict. He ran into me on the street by accident and recognized me. After we chatted for a while, I asked him what the single, most important thing was the jury relied upon in convicting the defendant. He said: "The defendant was Mexican. The dead guy was Mexican. Those people kill each other."

After three years of motions, vigorously opposed by the prosecution (if you can believe that), we I was finally able to get a new trial for the defendant. The reason? This juror was obviously racially prejudiced, and he had concealed that fact on voir dire.

I did not do the retrial. Second time around, they hung. Third time around, he was convicted of murder two. He had been convicted of murder one at the first trial.

Why should I notify the judge of my potential to nullify?

Voure dire should catch the personal bias you think might lead to jury nullification, just like it should catch the potential bias that could lead to guilt verdicts because they believe that anytime the state charges someone they are automatically guilty. You continually bringing up those examples is just as ridiculous as me pointing to the opposite. Aren't you glad I didn't try to post your story as an example of why jury nullification should be forced on the courts?

 

[Gadawg73]

The difficulty in understanding just what Jury Nullification is rests in its basic simplicity, which is the simple fact that, regardless of any material evidence or testimony, when the jury says "Not Guilty!" that's it! Period. There is a good reason for the existence of this facility and those who wish to understand it should goto: Fully Informed Jury Association

Here is an excerpt from the linked article:

Justice may depend upon your being chosen to serve, so here are some "words to the wise" about how to make it through voir dire, the jury selection process: You may feel that answering some of the questions asked of you would compromise your right to privacy. If you refuse to answer them, it will probably cost you your chance to serve. Likewise, if you "talk too much"--especially if you admit to knowing your rights and powers as a juror, as explained below, or that you have qualms about the law itself in the case at hand, or reveal that you're bright, educated, or are interested in serving! So, from voir dire to verdict, let your conscience be your guide.

"Let your conscience be your guide . . . " Translation: Figure out how to hide your intention to "nullify" the prosecution of the case upon which you are about to sit so that you will be able to be seated on the jury without subjecting yourself to those pesky contempt of court charges.

Mike, I hate to say it, but the site you have linked here is obviously a lunatic fringe site, similar to the sites that advocate non-payment of income tax. Sites such as these appear to offer legitimate justification for the particular action urged, but they are false prohphets, believe me.

George,

You started out saying Jury Nullification is a myth. Then you said you have no doubt that it happens. Now you're saying the FIJA is a lunatic fringe and consists of false prophets. In this you appear fixed on the notion that Jury Nullification necessarily includes a declaration of intent to nullify and in that assumption you are mistaken.

I am not a lawyer but I did attend law school (Fordham University) and as a Field Investigator for the New York City Corporation Counsel's Office it would take a while to remember how many times I testified in criminal (and civil) trials. So I am quite familiar with this topic and have discussed it with broadly experienced experts. Jury Nullification does not mean to announce, or to ever admit, one's intention to nullify. Jury Nulllification simply means a jury issuing a not guilty verdict when there is incontrovertible evidence of guilt.

We presently don't see much nullification for two reasons. First, the vast majority of criminal defendants are low-lifes who are clearly guilty as charged and who elicit sympathy or empathy from no one and, last, because the vast majority of jurors are ignorant (not stupid) and are unaware of their power. But, as was recently demonstrated in a petty marijuana case, the public is beginning to show a willingness to assert the substance of their collective conscience when called upon to support what essentially are tyrannical laws.

The FIJA's purpose is to inform the public of the correct way to exercise their power, which is to tell the truth during the selection process but don't reveal their intention to nullify if their conscience points them in that direction. Once the public becomes aware of that power and how to exercise it, which will happen when the need arises, you will see vigorous attempts to re-define the role of juries.

What?
If during voir dire a prospective jurist states they will not follow the charged law in their deliberations and base that and the evidence in their verdict they are dismissed for cause by the judge.

 

[Gadawg73]

In the first place, all potential jurors are carefully informed of all the charges at the commencement of jury selection. There is a reason for that. The court (judge) and the attorneys, want to know how the prospective jurors feel about the law - for the precise reason of excluding any potential juror who might "have a problem" enforcing the particular charges or, conversely, who might "have a problem" finding someone not guilty of the particular charges.

Thus far, QW, we have been discussing the issue in the context of jury nullification based on a dissatisfaction with the law, as opposed to factual jury nullification, which is an entirely different breed of cat.

Let's stick to legal jury nullification for the moment. How would you know you intended to nullify the charge before you knew what the charge was? You wouldn't. But you would be informed of the charge prior to the start of jury selection. Let's say you are an ardent opponent of the marijuana laws. You sit down in the courtroom and are informed that this case will involve possession of marijuana charges. Seems to me you might have a pretty good idea at that point, about what you would do if you got on the jury.

Factual jury nullification is where a juror has no problem with the law, but votes not guilty because he thinks that, on the facts presented, that would be the "right thing to do," even though the facts clearly show the defendant is guilty. One of the best homicide lawyers in our office recently said, in a homicide seminar: There are only two, main questions in any murder case. (1) Did the victim deserve to die and (2) Was the defendant the right man for the job? He was being facetious, of course, but the fact remains that, in many murder cases, these questions do weigh heavily.

As I have mentioned earlier, in the course of my career, I have probably had four or five cases where I hoped that the jury might find my client not guilty even though he clearly was, on the basis that he was obviously getting screwed, the victim was a real jerk, etc.

It never happened. And it has never happened to any other lawyer I have ever talked with about the subject. Why? Because jurors take their instructions very, very seriously. I have had a juror come up to me afterwords and tell me, "Sorry we had to do that." He was, in effect, telling me that if jury nullification was allowed, and they had not been instructed to follow the law and apply that law to the facts without regard for sympathy for either side, they wold have acquitted my client.

That was a good juror.

The example I posted to start this thread was exactly what you are describing. The potential jurors were asked if they could convict someone felony possession of less than 1/16th of an ounce, and most of them answered honestly and said no, so many that it was impossible to actually seat a jury. What exactly is your problem with that again? Where did they violate any oaths or not listen to the sacred jury instructions.

Where I get hung up in voire dire is when a judge asks me if I would make a decision based solely on his instructions. I once got threatened with contempt charges when I answered no to that, and when asked for clarification honestly answered that it would depend on what those instructions would be. If he instructed me to do something that I believed was immoral or illegal I would ignore those instructions, which is why I refuse to answer questions like that until I know all the facts.

I always answer the questions I am asked honestly, I advise everyone to do the same. That does not obligate me to sit up there and state that I am opposed to certain laws if I am not asked. Nor does it tell me that the state is attempting to prosecute someone for something that, when applied to them, is actually a political crime and not a criminal one.

Maybe if more people who understood the concept, and were willing to vote their conscience instead of blindly following the instructions of judges who think that they have the power to force verdicts that are morally wrong, you might occasionally see people who are guilty but shouldn't be in prison released.

BTW, that guy was not a good juror, he was a good slave. There is a significant difference between the two.

Unfortunately for you we are a nation of laws, not you and your beliefs.
Something about the Constitution.
You can change the law but you have to follow the laws. You can certainly choose not to but ignorance of the law is never an excuse and you have to take the penalties if you choose not to follow the law.
Always. Otherwise everyone would object and we would have chaos.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

No, it is to listen to the judge charge the jury ON THE LAW. The law is read to the jury, is not an opinion, and the jury can determine if the defendant is guilty in a criminal case based on the charged law and the evidence. What research? Jurors are not allowed to do research in a trial. That is biased and is not evidence. They are charged to never do that.
Conscience is not law or evidence.

 

[MikeK]

Here is an excerpt from the linked article:



"Let your conscience be your guide . . . " Translation: Figure out how to hide your intention to "nullify" the prosecution of the case upon which you are about to sit so that you will be able to be seated on the jury without subjecting yourself to those pesky contempt of court charges.

Mike, I hate to say it, but the site you have linked here is obviously a lunatic fringe site, similar to the sites that advocate non-payment of income tax. Sites such as these appear to offer legitimate justification for the particular action urged, but they are false prohphets, believe me.

George,

You started out saying Jury Nullification is a myth. Then you said you have no doubt that it happens. Now you're saying the FIJA is a lunatic fringe and consists of false prophets. In this you appear fixed on the notion that Jury Nullification necessarily includes a declaration of intent to nullify and in that assumption you are mistaken.

I am not a lawyer but I did attend law school (Fordham University) and as a Field Investigator for the New York City Corporation Counsel's Office it would take a while to remember how many times I testified in criminal (and civil) trials. So I am quite familiar with this topic and have discussed it with broadly experienced experts. Jury Nullification does not mean to announce, or to ever admit, one's intention to nullify. Jury Nulllification simply means a jury issuing a not guilty verdict when there is incontrovertible evidence of guilt.

We presently don't see much nullification for two reasons. First, the vast majority of criminal defendants are low-lifes who are clearly guilty as charged and who elicit sympathy or empathy from no one and, last, because the vast majority of jurors are ignorant (not stupid) and are unaware of their power. But, as was recently demonstrated in a petty marijuana case, the public is beginning to show a willingness to assert the substance of their collective conscience when called upon to support what essentially are tyrannical laws.

The FIJA's purpose is to inform the public of the correct way to exercise their power, which is to tell the truth during the selection process but don't reveal their intention to nullify if their conscience points them in that direction. Once the public becomes aware of that power and how to exercise it, which will happen when the need arises, you will see vigorous attempts to re-define the role of juries.

What?
If during voir dire a prospective jurist states they will not follow the charged law in their deliberations and base that and the evidence in their verdict they are dismissed for cause by the judge.

I think you mean a prospective juror, not jurist.

In either case, I'm not aware of the conflict in my statement you appear to be challenging.