Jury Nullification

[Quantum Windbag]

Hmmmm . . . In his OP, QW has a link. I went there and clicked on the "Constitutional Authority for Jury Nullification" link I found. This link claims that there are three states which have express language in their state constitutions which gives juries the right to decide BOTH the facts AND "the law."

Of course, this raises the question - suppose a judge were to decide that HE/SHE didn't like a particular law that was on trial in from of him/her. I don't think the judge would get very far by "striking down" the law, merely because he/she felt it was a bad law, even though the judge is the ultimate decider of "the law" in the case at bar.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that exactly what happens when a judge declares a law unconstitutional? I thought that even trial judges could do that, subject to being overturned. Most probably do not, but there are exceptions.

 

[George Costanza]

Hmmmm . . . In his OP, QW has a link. I went there and clicked on the "Constitutional Authority for Jury Nullification" link I found. This link claims that there are three states which have express language in their state constitutions which gives juries the right to decide BOTH the facts AND "the law."

Of course, this raises the question - suppose a judge were to decide that HE/SHE didn't like a particular law that was on trial in from of him/her. I don't think the judge would get very far by "striking down" the law, merely because he/she felt it was a bad law, even though the judge is the ultimate decider of "the law" in the case at bar.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that exactly what happens when a judge declares a law unconstitutional? I thought that even trial judges could do that, subject to being overturned. Most probably do not, but there are exceptions.

When we speak of jury nullification, we are talking about something that happens in a trial court. It is very rare for a trial judge to declare a law unconstitutional. If that is to be done, it is done at the appellate level - usually a pretty high appellate level.

I haven't immersed myself into this jury nullification issue to any great degree, but I suspect that those claiming that jury nullification is legitmate and legal might be in pretty much the same boat as those claiming that we don't have to pay any income taxes. Those guys (the anti-tax folks) sound very convincing and present snippets of the Constitution and the tax laws which appear to make an iron-clad case for their position. But guess what - they are wrong. So too, are the folks that maintain the Web site which you linked in the OP, I stongly suspect.

 

[jillian]

I understand that, but the fact is that juries have repeatedly ignored the law. They did so with Harriet Tubman because they believed the FSA was immoral, and they were right. Sometimes waiting for the legislature, or the courts, takes to long.

then why bother having either law or courts?

 

[William Joyce]

I understand that, but the fact is that juries have repeatedly ignored the law. They did so with Harriet Tubman because they believed the FSA was immoral, and they were right. Sometimes waiting for the legislature, or the courts, takes to long.

then why bother having either law or courts?

state courts: help Jews get rich

federal courts: help Jews keep enemies under control

I actually don't see a quick or easy answer to the question of the legitimacy of jury nullification. The general idea is: juries decide facts, not law. If a juror is doing "jury nullification", most of the time nobody will ever know. I've witnessed MIND-BLOWING verdicts in cases that make you think, "I hope to God that was a jury nullification, because otherwise the jury is retarded."

Maybe a helpful question would be: who's helped by monkey-wrenching the legal system with jury nullification? Blacks like O.J. Simpson? The FIJA folks are white "free man"-types, who hope to get out of tax cases and what-not. But this only accounts for a tiny fraction of criminal cases, and if jurors are nullifying, it's not to help the occasional white "freeman" weirdo.

 

[George Costanza]

state courts: help Jews get rich

federal courts: help Jews keep enemies under control

Excuse me? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Could you be a little more specific - no, a LOT more specific.

How do state and federal courts help Jews any more than anyone else?

 

[syrenn]

state courts: help Jews get rich

federal courts: help Jews keep enemies under control

Excuse me? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Could you be a little more specific - no, a LOT more specific.

How do state and federal courts help Jews any more than anyone else?

I am with GC

What was all of that? Care to explain?

 

[foggedinn]

but i also think the concept of jury nullification is ignorant. and the people who talk about it generally wouldn't have the cojones to tell the judge that's what they believe if called upon to do so.

I know a few that have. It usually gets them tossed out during voir dire for cause, often by the judge.

When I told the judge the truth during voir dire, he told me I would never sit on a jury.

Three days later, I sat as the thirteenth juror during a trial in his courtroom.

The trial was a real hoot. Bars, booze, and a fight over a whore who didn't show up for the trial.

 

[George Costanza]

state courts: help Jews get rich

federal courts: help Jews keep enemies under control

Excuse me? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Could you be a little more specific - no, a LOT more specific.

How do state and federal courts help Jews any more than anyone else?

I am with GC

What was all of that? Care to explain?

I have a feeling I know what it's going to be . . . I just want to hear him say it.

 

[syrenn]

Excuse me? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Could you be a little more specific - no, a LOT more specific.

How do state and federal courts help Jews any more than anyone else?

I am with GC

What was all of that? Care to explain?

I have a feeling I know what it's going to be . . . I just want to hear him say it.

Actually I am sorta scared to see what is going to come out.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I understand that, but the fact is that juries have repeatedly ignored the law. They did so with Harriet Tubman because they believed the FSA was immoral, and they were right. Sometimes waiting for the legislature, or the courts, takes to long.

then why bother having either law or courts?

Because the alternative is worse.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am with GC

What was all of that? Care to explain?

I have a feeling I know what it's going to be . . . I just want to hear him say it.

Actually I am sorta scared to see what is going to come out.

I do know, which is why I ignore him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Joyce