State Adopts Jury Nullification Jurors Can Question Law

[Quantum Windbag]

Juries settle questions of fact - judges settle questions of law. This is law school 101.

You have been to law school now? Are you dropping your claim to be an astrophysicist? If not, don't pretend you know what law school 101 is.

My degree in physics does not alter the fact that juries consider questions of fact, judges consider questions of law.

Judges often instruct juries that they are not supposed to judge the law. That does not change the fact that juries actually have the power to judge the law, and have even been instructed to do so by judges.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My degree in physics does not alter the fact that juries consider questions of fact, judges consider questions of law.

Wrong, yet again.

Points, authorities and quotes:

http://fija.org/docs/BP_quotes_on_jury_authority_and_jury_nullification.pdf

Sorry I stopped reading at "Nevertheless, the majority opinion held that jurors need not be told this."
LOL!

A bunch of quotes doesn't alter the role of the jury as a fact finding body.


Jury nullification also violates equal protection under the law.

No one is saying that the jury is not there to judge facts, what we are pointing out is that is not all they are there for, despite the fact that most judges want to take that power away from them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So what?

You g'head and tell us all what charge Laura Kriho was convicted of in this recent case: http://www.dvmen.org/Cases/96CR91_1Nieto_Kriho.htm

C'mon...Dazzle us with your alleged knowledge of the law.

This is from the pattern jury instructions for the 5th circuit. (I is the judge)

I will decide which rules of law apply to this case, in response to questions or objections raised by the attorneys as we go along, and also in the final instructions given to you after the evidence and arguments are completed. You must follow the law as I explain it to you whether you agree with it or not.

You, and you alone, are judges of the facts. Therefore, you should give careful attention to
the testimony and exhibits, because based upon this evidence you will decide whether the
government has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant has committed the crime(s) charged in the indictment. You must base that decision only on the evidence in the case and my instructions about the law. You will have the exhibits with you when you deliberate.

http://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/img/icons/icon-pdf.png

Judges settle questions of law, juries questions of fact.

And? If the jury ignores that instruction, walks out into court, finds the defendant not guilty, and tells the judge that they ignored his instructions, will that change the verdict? Will the judge be able to throw the guy in prison because the jury ignored him?

If not, what does that do to your assertion that the role of the jury is not to judge the law?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No it is NOT "perfectly legal" if a jury chooses to ignore a judge's instruction. We seem to be dancing around this term, "legal" in the context of this discussion. You apparently think that because there is no express, criminal statute which prohibits jury nullification, it is, therefore, "legal" for juries to do it. OK - if you want to make that the test, then yes, it is "legal" in that sense. But you are conveniently overlooking (1) instructions given to the jury by the judge and (2) the sanctions available to the judge if those instructions are not followed.

We are not going to parse the word legal so that you get to declare that something is illegal just because some judge might take it into his head to abuse his power and punish me for doing it.

The inside of a jail cell doesn't really care whether you got there for violating an express statute or a judge's instruction - it's still the inside of a jail cell.

Doesn't actually prove anything though, does it? That judge could just as easily decide to pull a gun and shoot anyone who disregards his instructions, The question is, will he be able to get away with throwing me in jail when my habeas corpus petition lands on the desk of a higher court.

Where on earth did you get the idea that if a judge becomes aware that his instructions were ignored by the jury and a nullification verdict was rendered, there is "not a damn thing he can do about it." There sure is. He can declare a mistrial and throw the entire jury into jail for contempt of court.

He cannot declare a mistrial after the verdict has been read, that would violate the defendant's double jeopardy protection. Even a criminal defense attorney who thinks jury nullification is absurd wouldn't let him get away with that, would you?

The operative phrase there is "becomes aware." Sure, if a jury renders a nullification verdict and no one breaks under questioining from the judge and cops out to the real reason for the verdict, then I suppose there wouldn't be anything he could do. But, as I mentioned in a previous post, it is highly unlikely that anything like that would ever happen.

Even if they break, there is nothing he can do. The only way a jury member can get in trouble as a result of the verdict they deliver is if the state can prove that something illegal, like perjury of bribery, occurred. As long as the juror voted his conscious, even if he later says that his conscious forced him to disregard the instructions of the judge, they will walk out of court free.

You have any verification of your statement that no juror has ever been sactioned for engaging in jury nullification and admitting he did so? I didn't see that anywhere in your response here . . .

That's not how it works, is it George? I do not have to prove that something did not happen, which is almost impossible, You, on the other hand, can easily prove me wrong by finding a single case of a juror who was charged with anything, including contempt of court, and prove that it was not eventually overturned on appeal when a judge with more sense overruled the presiding judge.

I don't think the instructions which prohibit juries from considering the law are wrong. I agree with them. We don't need juries undoing laws by rendering nullification verdicts. If you don't like the law, get it repealed. As long as it's on the books, right or wrong, it's the law. Encouraging jury nullification verdicts is a step torward anarchy.

If I don't like a law, and they call me for jury duty, I will nullify it. If they don't call me for jury duty, I will work on getting it repealed, and I will urge anyone who is called for jury duty to remember their power to nullify it if they agree with me that it is wrong. If more people were willing to do that we wouldn't have 10% of the adult population in this country in trouble with the law. It is not a step toward anarchy to get rid of bad laws through any means available. It is, however, a step toward tyranny to let bad laws remain on the book unchallenged because no one wants to look like they are anti children or pro drugs.

What would I do if I felt a jury had rendered a not guilty, nullification verdict in favor of my client? Nothing. When it comes to a conflict between my duty to my client and my duty as an officer of the court, the former almost always wins out.

Of course it does. I am willing to bet that, if you thought you wouldn't get disbarred, you would stand up in court during every trial and tell juries about their power to nullify. The sad thing is that, even when it is a legitimate point, the courts won't let you do that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is not a law, per se, against jury nullification, but as I think you well know, juries are instructed by the judge not to consider legal issues and to base their verdict solely on the facts. If the judge finds out that the jury did not do that, and rendered a not guilty verdict that should otherwise have been guilty merely because they disagreed with the law involved, the jury members could be jailed for disobeying the judge's instructions.

I would like to see some corroboration of your statement that no juror has ever been prosecuted for engaging in jury nullification and admitting that he did so.

No it is NOT "perfectly legal" if a jury chooses to ignore a judge's instruction. We seem to be dancing around this term, "legal" in the context of this discussion. You apparently think that because there is no express, criminal statute which prohibits jury nullification, it is, therefore, "legal" for juries to do it. OK - if you want to make that the test, then yes, it is "legal" in that sense. But you are conveniently overlooking (1) instructions given to the jury by the judge and (2) the sanctions available to the judge if those instructions are not followed.

The inside of a jail cell doesn't really care whether you got there for violating an express statute or a judge's instruction - it's still the inside of a jail cell.

Where on earth did you get the idea that if a judge becomes aware that his instructions were ignored by the jury and a nullification verdict was rendered, there is "not a damn thing he can do about it." There sure is. He can declare a mistrial and throw the entire jury into jail for contempt of court.

The operative phrase there is "becomes aware." Sure, if a jury renders a nullification verdict and no one breaks under questioining from the judge and cops out to the real reason for the verdict, then I suppose there wouldn't be anything he could do. But, as I mentioned in a previous post, it is highly unlikely that anything like that would ever happen.

You have any verification of your statement that no juror has ever been sactioned for engaging in jury nullification and admitting he did so? I didn't see that anywhere in your response here . . .

You seem to think that your duty, as an officer of the court, to uphold the law, even if you think it is wrong,somehow binds the jury that reaches the same conclusion. I would love to see you explain that one.

I don't think the instructions which prohibit juries from considering the law are wrong. I agree with them. We don't need juries undoing laws by rendering nullification verdicts. If you don't like the law, get it repealed. As long as it's on the books, right or wrong, it's the law. Encouraging jury nullification verdicts is a step torward anarchy.

What would I do if I felt a jury had rendered a not guilty, nullification verdict in favor of my client? Nothing. When it comes to a conflict between my duty to my client and my duty as an officer of the court, the former almost always wins out.

Jury nullification results in unequal treatment under the law. Two defendants can be accused of the same crime and each have the same level of evidence showing they did it - but one gets off because he catches a nullifying jury.

Believe it or not, there is already unequal treatment under the law. Just ask George how often his non rich clients go to jail for something rich clients get away with, or how often black clients get nailed for things white clients get away with. Jury nullification is a way rectify that.

 

[Oddball]

We are not going to parse the word legal so that you get to declare that something is illegal just because some judge might take it into his head to abuse his power and punish me for doing it.

There's a difference between legal and lawful...Georgie boy knows this.

He's as duplicitous a player with legal semantics as you'll encounter.

 

[MikeK]

I don't want a jury deciding if a law is ok or not. Lawyers don't want and informed jury, they want to tell the jury what the law is and how they should decide. When I have been called for jury duty it has been made clear they don't want an independent thinker.

The concept of jury nullification as it exists in our Common Law derives from the Magna Carta and its purpose was back then, as it is now, to serve as the last bastion of defense against tyrannical authority. An example would be a common man who kills a corrupt and brutal official and is placed on trial. The evidence against the commoner is clear and undeniable but the jury of commoners is guided by conscience rather than legal facts. They pronounce a verdict of not guilty. The implication of that verdict would put the fear of God in corrupt officials. And that is the importance and the ultimate value of jury nullification.

It is believed the most prominent example of jury nullification in recent history occurred in a Texas state court where members of the Branch Davidians were tried for killing several of the BATF agents who raided their communal residence in Waco. The jury found them not guilty.

I believe another example of jury nullification was the verdict in the famous O.J. Simpson trial. The evidence against Simpson was overwhelming but he was found not guilty.

I'm sure there are many more examples that we simply never read or hear about. I believe it happens when there are jurors who understand nullification and apply it. And it will happen when circumstances of a case are such that all twelve jurors simply and quietly refuse to punish the defendant.

I presented a hypothetical example earlier in which a man murdered his next-door neighbor for raping his teen-age daughter. As the father of three girls, if I were a juror in his trial there is no way I would vote him guilty.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Jury nullification results in unequal treatment under the law.

No. You're supposed to be tried by a "jury of your peers" not a "jury of judges".

If the law is unjust and/or applied improperly, the local populace/jurors have a duty to find the defendant not guilty.

That makes them a jury of judges. Juries are supposed to find fact, not repeal law.

You ever heard of "Spirit and Intent" of a Law?

Example: Person is ticketed for doing 36 in a 35 zone. Technically he is in violation of the law but he is within the "spirit and intent" of the law by driving within a few miles of the posted limit.

If I was a juror in that trial I'd find the Defendant "Not Guilty".

Ever heard of a nation of laws not of men? The jury'sjob is to apply the law - not to decide which laws should apply. You've got it backwards. By allowing juries to simply nullify laws as you see fit, you are making a nation of men, not of laws. No man is above the law in our system.


Your example is absurd, BTW, as traffic fines are not tried by jury.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You have been to law school now? Are you dropping your claim to be an astrophysicist? If not, don't pretend you know what law school 101 is.

My degree in physics does not alter the fact that juries consider questions of fact, judges consider questions of law.

Judges often instruct juries that they are not supposed to judge the law. That does not change the fact that juries actually have the power to judge the law, and have even been instructed to do so by judges.

They have the power to do a bad job at being a jury, yes, you're correct.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Wrong, yet again.

Points, authorities and quotes:

http://fija.org/docs/BP_quotes_on_jury_authority_and_jury_nullification.pdf

Sorry I stopped reading at "Nevertheless, the majority opinion held that jurors need not be told this."
LOL!

A bunch of quotes doesn't alter the role of the jury as a fact finding body.


Jury nullification also violates equal protection under the law.

No one is saying that the jury is not there to judge facts, what we are pointing out is that is not all they are there for, despite the fact that most judges want to take that power away from them.

It is all they are there for. That's their charge from the judge - to judge the facts, not to re-write the laws.

 

[Oddball]

Jurors are free people, not playthings of judicial oligarchs.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So what?

You g'head and tell us all what charge Laura Kriho was convicted of in this recent case: http://www.dvmen.org/Cases/96CR91_1Nieto_Kriho.htm

C'mon...Dazzle us with your alleged knowledge of the law.

This is from the pattern jury instructions for the 5th circuit. (I is the judge)

I will decide which rules of law apply to this case, in response to questions or objections raised by the attorneys as we go along, and also in the final instructions given to you after the evidence and arguments are completed. You must follow the law as I explain it to you whether you agree with it or not.

You, and you alone, are judges of the facts. Therefore, you should give careful attention to
the testimony and exhibits, because based upon this evidence you will decide whether the
government has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant has committed the crime(s) charged in the indictment. You must base that decision only on the evidence in the case and my instructions about the law. You will have the exhibits with you when you deliberate.

http://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/img/icons/icon-pdf.png

Judges settle questions of law, juries questions of fact.

And? If the jury ignores that instruction, walks out into court, finds the defendant not guilty, and tells the judge that they ignored his instructions, will that change the verdict? Will the judge be able to throw the guy in prison because the jury ignored him?

If not, what does that do to your assertion that the role of the jury is not to judge the law?

A jury member that ignores a judges instructions is in contempt of court.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No it is NOT "perfectly legal" if a jury chooses to ignore a judge's instruction. We seem to be dancing around this term, "legal" in the context of this discussion. You apparently think that because there is no express, criminal statute which prohibits jury nullification, it is, therefore, "legal" for juries to do it. OK - if you want to make that the test, then yes, it is "legal" in that sense. But you are conveniently overlooking (1) instructions given to the jury by the judge and (2) the sanctions available to the judge if those instructions are not followed.

The inside of a jail cell doesn't really care whether you got there for violating an express statute or a judge's instruction - it's still the inside of a jail cell.

Where on earth did you get the idea that if a judge becomes aware that his instructions were ignored by the jury and a nullification verdict was rendered, there is "not a damn thing he can do about it." There sure is. He can declare a mistrial and throw the entire jury into jail for contempt of court.

The operative phrase there is "becomes aware." Sure, if a jury renders a nullification verdict and no one breaks under questioining from the judge and cops out to the real reason for the verdict, then I suppose there wouldn't be anything he could do. But, as I mentioned in a previous post, it is highly unlikely that anything like that would ever happen.

You have any verification of your statement that no juror has ever been sactioned for engaging in jury nullification and admitting he did so? I didn't see that anywhere in your response here . . .



I don't think the instructions which prohibit juries from considering the law are wrong. I agree with them. We don't need juries undoing laws by rendering nullification verdicts. If you don't like the law, get it repealed. As long as it's on the books, right or wrong, it's the law. Encouraging jury nullification verdicts is a step torward anarchy.

What would I do if I felt a jury had rendered a not guilty, nullification verdict in favor of my client? Nothing. When it comes to a conflict between my duty to my client and my duty as an officer of the court, the former almost always wins out.

Jury nullification results in unequal treatment under the law. Two defendants can be accused of the same crime and each have the same level of evidence showing they did it - but one gets off because he catches a nullifying jury.

Believe it or not, there is already unequal treatment under the law. Just ask George how often his non rich clients go to jail for something rich clients get away with, or how often black clients get nailed for things white clients get away with. Jury nullification is a way rectify that.

That's absurd. Jury nullification will only result in men being placed above the law.

 

[Oddball]

A jury member that ignores a judges instructions is in contempt of court.

No, no they're not.

Laura Kriho was ultimately acquitted of any and all wrongdoing.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Jurors are free people, not playthings of judicial oligarchs.

Jurors do not get to make their own laws. They are charged by the judge to find fact and there are certain procedures they must follow. They may not consider testimony that has been stricken from the record - they may not discuss the case with one another until deliberations begin - they may not decide the person is guilty under the law but the law should not apply - all of these things are things they may be able to get away with - but it doesn't change the fact that isn't their job.

Their job is straightforward - do the facts of the case make the defendant under the law as written? yes or no. That's it.

There are plenty of checks against unjust laws - judges can be lenient in sentencing. Governors and Presidents may pardon or commute. These are checks that are allowed by the law. For a jury to nullify a law is for them to place themselves above the law.

 

[Oddball]

Voting to acquit because the jurors believe the law is unjust is not "making up law", by any stretch of lolberal imagination.

Why are you so deathly afraid of the common man?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A jury member that ignores a judges instructions is in contempt of court.

No, no they're not.

Laura Kriho was ultimately acquitted of any and all wrongdoing.

And? People get acquitted of murder all the time - does that mean murder is legal? I don't see your angle.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Voting to acquit because the jurors believe the law is unjust is not "making up law", by any stretch of lolberal imagination.

I fail to see how that isn't making up the law.

Why are you so deathly afraid of the common man?

The mob you mean?

 

[George Costanza]

Jurors are free people, not playthings of judicial oligarchs.

Jurors do not get to make their own laws. They are charged by the judge to find fact and there are certain procedures they must follow. They may not consider testimony that has been stricken from the record - they may not discuss the case with one another until deliberations begin - they may not decide the person is guilty under the law but the law should not apply - all of these things are things they may be able to get away with - but it doesn't change the fact that isn't their job.

Their job is straightforward - do the facts of the case make the defendant under the law as written? yes or no. That's it.

There are plenty of checks against unjust laws - judges can be lenient in sentencing. Governors and Presidents may pardon or commute. These are checks that are allowed by the law. For a jury to nullify a law is for them to place themselves above the law.

This says it all. Anyone who disagrees with it is simply wrong.

 

[Oddball]

Looks like both of you are deathly afraid of the common man, who might find your judicial oligarchy just another form of detached and self-important elitist tyranny.

Oh well...At least the battle lines are rather clearly drawn.