Jury nullification wins over dumb law

[George Costanza]

And the jury box is where the citizens decide of the justness of laws foisted upon them by mere politicians.....The litany of which curiously includes NO LAW which precludes them from doing so.

Wrong. Case law in all jurisdictions precludes them from doing so.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah..."Case law".

Translation: We the Judges have ruled that we rule and lord over peasants, because we say so.

Which LAW (i.e. passed by the legislatures who are supposed to be the ones creating the laws) tells jurors that they are mere tools of the court?

 

[BlindBoo]

Maybe of more people stood up and refused to on things like this we could get the government to start concentrating on the real problems.

A funny thing happened on the way to a trial in Missoula County District Court last week. Jurors – well, potential jurors – staged a revolt.
They took the law into their own hands, as it were, and made it clear they weren’t about to convict anybody for having a couple of buds of marijuana. Never mind that the defendant in question also faced a felony charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.
The tiny amount of marijuana police found while searching Touray Cornell’s home on April 23 became a huge issue for some members of the jury panel.
No, they said, one after the other. No way would they convict somebody for having a 16th of an ounce.
In fact, one juror wondered why the county was wasting time and money prosecuting the case at all, said a flummoxed Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul.

Missoula District Court: Jury pool in marijuana case stages ?mutiny?

A step in the right direction, even if the guy who benefited was the least deserving.

I agree insofar as the stupidity of marijuana laws. But I don't recommend trying something like that the next time you are called for jury duty.

How far do you think you would get if you "made it clear" that you simply were not going to sit on a jury? No reason - you just won't sit. What do you think would happen to you? Hint: Sanctions. So how does giving a reason ("I think the marijuana laws are stupid") make it any different? It doesn't.

"Jury nullification" is a popular myth that comes down to us from a misunderstanding of the purpose of juries in the first place. In real life, it does not exist.

The doctrine of jury nullification (search) rests on two truths about the American criminal justice system: (1) Jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return, and (2) Defendants cannot be retried once a jury has found them not guilty

It does not exist in a legal statue, but it certianly exist in real life. A juror does not have to cite a reason for his/her verdict.

 

[George Costanza]

The doctrine of jury nullification (search) rests on two truths about the American criminal justice system: (1) Jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return

Jurors can never be punished for a verdict they return. However, an individual juror (or individual jurors) can be punished for juror misconduct, which would include lying about qualifications on voir dire.

and (2) Defendants cannot be retried once a jury has found them not guilty

Correct.

It does not exist in a legal statute . . .

You are correct that there is no statute that authorizes jury nullification. And, while several states have constitutional provisions that some claim authorizes jury nullification, case law in all of these states expressly forbids a juror to disregard the law in rendering a verdict.

. . . but it certainly exists in real life.

No - the possibility of it exists in real life, but it actually happens so seldom that it is not statistically significant.

A juror does not have to cite a reason for his/her verdict.

Correct. However, jurors can be questioned by the judge about what went on during jury deliberations if a prima facie showing of jury misconduct is made by either side and may be subject to sanctions if jury misconduct is found.

 

[Oddball]

You are correct that there is no statute that authorizes jury nullification. And, while several states have constitutional provisions that some claim authorizes jury nullification, case law in all of these states expressly forbids a juror to disregard the law in rendering a verdict.

IOW, the legal oligarchy has abused their power and usurped the right of the citizen juror to judge the law as well as the facts in the case.

About time you admitted that there is no law, anywhere, which prohibits jurors from exercising their rights.

 

[George Costanza]

You are correct that there is no statute that authorizes jury nullification. And, while several states have constitutional provisions that some claim authorizes jury nullification, case law in all of these states expressly forbids a juror to disregard the law in rendering a verdict.

IOW, the legal oligarchy has abused their power and usurped the right of the citizen juror to judge the law as well as the facts in the case.

About time you admitted that there is no law, anywhere, which prohibits jurors from exercising their rights.

You need to understand that there are two types of law in our justice system - statute law and case law. And BOTH are equally viable, equally enforceable.

I know of no statute that prohibits jurors from "exercising their rights," as you incorrectly term it. But, in the very few states whose constitutions authorized jurors to consider both the law and the facts, there are cases in each of them which prohibit jurors from disregarding the law, either as it is written or as they are instructed by the court.