State Adopts Jury Nullification Jurors Can Question Law

[Oddball]

Those who argue for jury nullification have something to argue about. However, claiming that jurors have a "right" to render a nullification verdict is flat wrong. They not only do not have a right to nullification, they are expressly instructed to consider only the facts and not the law, and can at ther very least, be excused from the jury if they refuse to follow those instructions.

That's pretty much all I know about the jury nullification issue. I hope it helps to clear the air a bit.

Just because some oligarch tells them that they do not have the right to judge the law doesn't mean diddly.

You know nothing about the nullification issue and are operating purely on ignorance and prejudice....Why can't you just own up to it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have had a lengthy discussion with our appellate department on this issue of jury nullification - and I learned a little along the way. Here's the deal:

If a jury renders a nullification verdict of not guilty, practically speaking, it's game over. Not guilty verdicts cannot be questioned or set aside. As a practical matter, the jurors would not be suject to any type of sanctions because statutes in most states prohibit investigation into the state of mind of the jurors while rendering the verdict.

Is a jury nullification verdict legal? No. There is no statute that prohibits jury nullification verdicts, but the judge always instructs jurors that they are not to consider the law, only the facts. Since a jury nullification verdict is based on a consideration of the law involved, it would be contrary to the judge's instructions and, to that extent, "illegal."

Here is where it gets a little tricky. As mentioned, above, if the fact of jury nullification is not discovered until after the verdict has been rendered, there is virtually nothing that can be done about it. If it is discovered while the jury is still deliberating - a juror sends a note to the judge telling him that there are several jurors who are indicating they are going to acquit regardless of the facts because they disagree with the law - then there is something that can be done.

In this latter case, the judge would call the potential nullification jurors out and question them individually. He would again tell them what their duties are and what those duties are not. He would then ask if they will be able to follow those instructions. If they say no, they cannot in good conscience do that, they would be dismissed, and an alternate seated. Punished? Probably not.

If they say yes, they could follow the judge's instructions, they would be returned to the jury room for further deliberation. If the jury then returned a verdict of not guilty, game over. If the jury remained hung, the judge would repeat the questioning of the jurors, trying to determine the reason for the inability to reach a verdict. If some jurors admitted they were only hanging to nullify, they would be dismissed. If they didn't, deliberations would continue until the trial either reached a verdict or the judge declared a mistrial due to the jury's inability to reach a verdict.

Those who argue for jury nullification have something to argue about. However, claiming that jurors have a "right" to render a nullification verdict is flat wrong. They not only do not have a right to nullification, they are expressly instructed to consider only the facts and not the law, and can at ther very least, be excused from the jury if they refuse to follow those instructions.

That's pretty much all I know about the jury nullification issue. I hope it helps to clear the air a bit.

Thanks. Nice to see that I actually interpreted the appropriate law and precedents properly. Not being a real lawyer I have to rely on guessing more than books when I figure things like that out.

 

[jillian]

Those who argue for jury nullification have something to argue about. However, claiming that jurors have a "right" to render a nullification verdict is flat wrong. They not only do not have a right to nullification, they are expressly instructed to consider only the facts and not the law, and can at ther very least, be excused from the jury if they refuse to follow those instructions.

That's pretty much all I know about the jury nullification issue. I hope it helps to clear the air a bit.

Just because some oligarch tells them that they do not have the right to judge the law doesn't mean diddly.

You know nothing about the nullification issue and are operating purely on ignorance and prejudice....Why can't you just own up to it?

that's funny.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is if the facts of the case fit the elements of the crime as defined by the law.

He admitted to the crime on the stand during the trial, and was found not guilty. Why don't you dash off to San Jose and demand they try every member of the jury for their criminal actions?

I'm sorry - the link that I read (that you provided) only covered pre-verdict considerations, i.e., the closing argument. I didn't read anywhere that the ultimate verdict was not guilty. Did I miss something somewhere in the linked article?

No, I forgot to provide the link to the final verdict. I wanted to include that link because I thought the reporting on the closing arguments was interesting, and because it actually supported your argument that California does not permit jury nullification. The DAs in the Bay Area have been known to not bring charges at times, and have actually openly admitted to the press that juries tend to nullify some laws up here.

 

[Oddball]

Those who argue for jury nullification have something to argue about. However, claiming that jurors have a "right" to render a nullification verdict is flat wrong. They not only do not have a right to nullification, they are expressly instructed to consider only the facts and not the law, and can at ther very least, be excused from the jury if they refuse to follow those instructions.

That's pretty much all I know about the jury nullification issue. I hope it helps to clear the air a bit.

Just because some oligarch tells them that they do not have the right to judge the law doesn't mean diddly.

You know nothing about the nullification issue and are operating purely on ignorance and prejudice....Why can't you just own up to it?

that's funny.

Cite the law, counselor.

Bring it.

 

[Oddball]

I repeat....Specify the statute(s).

Shouldn't be that tough for a couple of lawyahs to dig up the specific law(s), which expressly and categorically prohibit jurors from judging the laws as well as the facts at hand.

Where are they to be found?

 

[Dissent]

Moving to NH sounds better and better..I love the south to much though...

 

[Paulie]

The way it is now a jury HAS to convict if the person broke the law, no matter what the law is.

Example.

Say a State has a law that says people under 5 feet tall must ride at the back of the Bus. Ms. Shirly Shortcake is arrested for sitting in the front of the bus. The judge instructs the Jury to find only if the Defendant violated the Law, thus guaranteeing her conviction and sentencing to jail.

Unbeknownst to most Jurors they have the Power of "Jury Nullification" which is the ability to find a defendant not guilty if they believe a Law is unjust, even if that defendant is absolutely guilty in a Court of Law.

If Juries understood this and started finding people not guilty for certain crimes like Drug Possession then guess what? The State won't spend any more time trying them because they won't get convicted!

This is how Americans fight back against unjust Laws that our elected officials foist upon us.

This is why the Jury box is one of the 4 boxes that the people have available to them to maintain control of this country.

 

[MikeK]

The way it is now a jury HAS to convict if the person broke the law, no matter what the law is.

Example.

Say a State has a law that says people under 5 feet tall must ride at the back of the Bus. Ms. Shirly Shortcake is arrested for sitting in the front of the bus. The judge instructs the Jury to find only if the Defendant violated the Law, thus guaranteeing her conviction and sentencing to jail.

Unbeknownst to most Jurors they have the Power of "Jury Nullification" which is the ability to find a defendant not guilty if they believe a Law is unjust, even if that defendant is absolutely guilty in a Court of Law.

If Juries understood this and started finding people not guilty for certain crimes like Drug Possession then guess what? The State won't spend any more time trying them because they won't get convicted!

This is how Americans fight back against unjust Laws that our elected officials foist upon us.

This is why the Jury box is one of the 4 boxes that the people have available to them to maintain control of this country.

And therein lies the tale. The problem is making the prospective juror aware of the power and the reason for it.

The power of nullification was written into the Magna Carta and passed into Common Law for the express purpose of placing the essence of legal power in the hands of the common people. It is an assurance that in the end the will of the people will prevail.

Those who rule are intimidated by this looming infringement on their authority and have sought to overcome it by constructing statutory impediments such as the legislated laws which prohibit informing jurors of their ability to transcend the will of a prosecutor -- regardless of any evidence of guilt. This circumstance is analogous to the Congress passing a law making it illegal to inform someone of his/her right to free speech. While such a law can legally prohibit informing a juror of his/her right to nullify it does not remove the right to do so.

Because the power to nullify does in effect impart the status of judge upon the jury and reduce the status of the judge to that of a referee, an obvious question arises: If Jury Nullification were not an accepted component of the Common Law, why is there any need for a jury? The simple answer is a "verdict" is in fact a final judgment.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Moving to NH sounds better and better..I love the south to much though...

You want to live in a state of men, not of laws, I see.

 

[Dissent]

I want to live in a state that values freedom and liberty not a tyrannical one.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I repeat....Specify the statute(s).

Shouldn't be that tough for a couple of lawyahs to dig up the specific law(s), which expressly and categorically prohibit jurors from judging the laws as well as the facts at hand.

Where are they to be found?

This is the instructions a judge in a 5th circuit reads to a jury

http://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2001.pdf

all other circuits will have similar instructions - and they all will inform the jury their job is to decide fact - not law.

this is the law that says you may be held in contempt for disobeying a judges instructions while participating in a court proceeding

18 USC § 401 - Power of court | LII / Legal Information Institute


Any more questions?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I want to live in a state that values freedom and liberty not a tyrannical one.

Placing man above the law is not consistent with freedom and liberty.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

By jury nullification logic, guilty and nolo contendere pleas should be placed before a jury. A person may pleadsguilty to a crime - but they haven't yet had a jury decide if the law should even count in their case. Not really fair, is it? So if you plead guilty to say - murder - a jury should then get to decide if they like you enough to let you off the hook entirely.

Also I suppose we should get rid of summary judgement in civil cases. Both sides agree to the facts - but why have a judge figure out how the law applies when we can have 12 random people just make up the law as they see fit?

Heck why even have laws at all? Just send all disputes to a jury.

 

[Dissent]

I want to live in a state that values freedom and liberty not a tyrannical one.

Placing man above the law is not consistent with freedom and liberty.

It's not placing ANYTHING above the law its deciding if the law that was made by man is immoral or illegal. Plain and simple. So yea it is very consistent with freedom and liberty. 2 things you know nothing about.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I want to live in a state that values freedom and liberty not a tyrannical one.

Placing man above the law is not consistent with freedom and liberty.

It's not placing ANYTHING above the law its deciding if the law that was made by man is immoral or illegal. Plain and simple. So yea it is very consistent with freedom and liberty. 2 things you know nothing about.

Sorry, but jury nullification is by definition a member of a jury placing themselves above the law. A juror that placed themselves below the law would decide guilt or innocence based on whether the facts of the case fit the elements of the crime as defined by the law - and not their own personal preferences as to what the law should be.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Outstanding move on New Hampshire Governor John Lynch's part. One state down, 49 more to go.

Jury nullification, in which jurors refuse to convict defendants under laws they find objectionable or inappropriately applied, is a favored tactic of many libertarians who, rightly or wrongly perceive individual liberty as, at best, a minority taste among their neighbors. They like the idea of a tool that can be wielded on the spot to shield people from powerful control freaks without first having to win a popularity contest. But nullification is useful only if people know about it. And last week, New Hampshire's governor signed a law requiring the state's judges to permit defense attorneys to inform jurors of their right to nullify the law.

New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed HB 146 on June 18, 2012 - which reads:

"A right of accused. In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy."
US~Observer - New Hampshire legalizes jury nullification

Good, maybe this will help those that are on trial for federal tax violations against the IRS.
Show them the law...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1UT2Ms5E2k&feature=related]Ex IRS agent tells it like it is - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Moving to NH sounds better and better..I love the south to much though...

You want to live in a state of men, not of laws, I see.

The USSR was a nation of laws. What makes laws better than men?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By jury nullification logic, guilty and nolo contendere pleas should be placed before a jury. A person may pleadsguilty to a crime - but they haven't yet had a jury decide if the law should even count in their case. Not really fair, is it? So if you plead guilty to say - murder - a jury should then get to decide if they like you enough to let you off the hook entirely.

Also I suppose we should get rid of summary judgement in civil cases. Both sides agree to the facts - but why have a judge figure out how the law applies when we can have 12 random people just make up the law as they see fit?

Heck why even have laws at all? Just send all disputes to a jury.

You don't want to start arguing peal bargains with me, I suggest you pretend you won the argument go play with your dolls.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Placing man above the law is not consistent with freedom and liberty.

It's not placing ANYTHING above the law its deciding if the law that was made by man is immoral or illegal. Plain and simple. So yea it is very consistent with freedom and liberty. 2 things you know nothing about.

Sorry, but jury nullification is by definition a member of a jury placing themselves above the law. A juror that placed themselves below the law would decide guilt or innocence based on whether the facts of the case fit the elements of the crime as defined by the law - and not their own personal preferences as to what the law should be.

This kind of reasoning is why I know you are not a scientist of any type. If someone thinks they are above the law they believe the law applies to others, but not themselves. A jury that nullifies a law is saying the law does not apply to others so, by definition, they are not putting themselves above the law.