Unpopular Opinion: Jury Duty can be used to take a stand for Free Speech.

[SavannahMann]

The country is past the point of no return. We are doomed and merely waiting for the fall to begin.

 

[Man of Ethics]

In many or all Jurisdictions, Jury Nullification is a right as old as jury trials themselves. If we use our rights against the best interest of those who silence us, we owe no one an explanation. The fact that we have the right is enough.

 

[Canon Shooter]

In my opinion, a defendant or accuser's active opposition to Free Speech should be important to jurors for the following reasons. First, someone who actively opposes our most Fundamental Human Rights should be seen as The Enemy of Humankind rather then a fellow citizen. Second, such person is morally bankrupt and thus capable of any wrong doing they are accused of.

This is asinine. It really, really is stupid.irst, avery well have absolutely nothing to do withe the charges against him.

Secondly, mere capability does not determine guilt.

Your idea is stupid...

 

[Man of Ethics]

This is asinine. It really, really is stupid.irst, avery well have absolutely nothing to do withe the charges against him.

Secondly, mere capability does not determine guilt.

Your idea is stupid...

No. Jury Nullification is a Right as old as the Jury Duty itself.

If you work to limit my Free Speech Rights by supporting Cancel Culture, I will take every practical legal step against your best interests. By "you" I mean everyone.

 

[AZrailwhale]

On

Jury duty is about the case at hand. Going in with an agenda would likely get one disqualified, or should. Attempting to plant an agenda outside the case at hand corrupts the system's integrity.

On a jury one time we had a person who lied during voir dire. She testified that she could judge the matter impartially. During the initial discussion she stated to the rest of the jury that under no circumstances she would find the defendant guilty. I had the bailiff carry a note to the judge about her statement and after questioning the juror. she read the juror the riot act, threatened to jail her for contempt, then tossed her off the jury and appointed one of the alternates. Being a juror is all about following the law, not about following your prejudices or private beliefs. If you can't do that you have no business being on a jury. My wife has never sat on a jury, when questioned in voir dire she states that she feels her religious beliefs prevent her from judging other people. She is always excused with a thank you.

 

[AZrailwhale]

What I mean is that any juror bases the decision partially on personal grudges they hold. This is our right.

In my opinion, anyone who is silenced by Cancel Culture should take every reasonable legal step to act against Best Interests of Cancel Culture proponents.

It's NOT your right. A juror swears to judge the defendant impartially based solely upon the EVIDENCE presented in court. A defendant is legally entitled to a impartial jury as is the public. When a juror tilts the scales of justice based upon personal grudges he or she is wrong and I'd even say evil. You'd obviously feel right at home on one of those early twentieth century deep south juries that let KKK members go free for lynching blacks. After all, those jurors had personal grudges against blacks.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Jury Nullification is a right as ancient as Jury System itself.

In over 90% of jury cases, both the Prosecution and Defense make plausible cases.

And if both cases are plausible, you have to refuse to convict. The prosecution has to prove it's case "beyond a reasonable doubt". If it fails to do so, even if the defendant is obviously guilty the jury has to acquit. That's the way the system is designed to work.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That has been the case since the beginning of Trial by Jury.

Juror 3 of Twelve Angry Men was assaulted by his son, thus he wanted to convict a totally unrelated young man of patricide.

And Henry Fonda did his part and stood firm preventing that miscarriage of justice.

 

[Man of Ethics]

It's NOT your right. A juror swears to judge the defendant impartially based solely upon the EVIDENCE presented in court. A defendant is legally entitled to a impartial jury as is the public. When a juror tilts the scales of justice based upon personal grudges he or she is wrong and I'd even say evil. You'd obviously feel right at home on one of those early twentieth century deep south juries that let KKK members go free for lynching blacks. After all, those jurors had personal grudges against blacks.

I oppose Racism 100%. KKK juries were evil.

Do you have any cases of a juror being prosecuted and convicted for Jury Nullification?

 

[Man of Ethics]

On

On a jury one time we had a person who lied during voir dire. She testified that she could judge the matter impartially. During the initial discussion she stated to the rest of the jury that under no circumstances she would find the defendant guilty. I had the bailiff carry a note to the judge about her statement and after questioning the juror. she read the juror the riot act, threatened to jail her for contempt, then tossed her off the jury and appointed one of the alternates.

Sometimes silence is golden.

Do you have any documented cases of a juror being successfully prosecuted for Jury Nullification?

 

[Man of Ethics]

When we have no Free Speech, we are not really Free. He who has no right to voice his grievances has no rights. Those who oppose our Free Speech take away all our rights and our personhood.

Reiterated. If anyone who supports Freedom is on a jury where an Enemy of Freedom is either a defendant or a plaintiff, they should act against the best interest of the Enemy of Freedom.


I am ready to change my point of view if anyone can find a case where a juror was convicted for jury nullification. I could not find even one such case.

 

[DGS49]

I am a 72-year old attorney. I got called once for jury duty, and it turned out that the attorney for one of the parties was a law school classmate of mine. That was in 1983. I have not been called since.

I am a licensed driver, a property owner, a registered voter, etc. I am on every conceivable "list" from which they might draw jurors, and yet I'm never called. As a retired bastard now, I would love to have the experience.

 

[Man of Ethics]

I am a 72-year old attorney.

Thank you. Are you a defender or a prosecutor?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If someone can find such cases, I am ready to change my opinion.

In any case, if both the prosecutor and the defender make plausible cases, then prosecuting a juror for bias would seem to be impossible.

I have never heard of a juror prosecuted for bias. If juror misconduct is discovered it is a mistrial, the verdict is vacated and a new trial is ordered. If a jury should agree to find against the evidence, as jury nullification, the judge can dismiss the jury verdict and enter a judgement notwithstanding the verdict instead. That's why you don't hear about jury nullification.

 

[Man of Ethics]

I have never heard of a juror prosecuted for bias. If juror misconduct is discovered it is a mistrial, the verdict is vacated and a new trial is ordered. If a jury should agree to find against the evidence, as jury nullification, the judge can dismiss the jury verdict and enter a judgement notwithstanding the verdict instead. That's why you don't hear about jury nullification.

Thank you!

In most cases both Prosecution and Defense make credible cases. It is a juror's legal right and Ethical Duty to act against the best interest of Enemy of Freedom be they the Defendant or Plaintiff.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Thank you!

In most cases both Prosecution and Defense make credible cases. It is a juror's legal right and Ethical Duty to act against the best interest of Enemy of Freedom be they the Defendant or Plaintiff.

It's not about "credible cases". The prosecution has to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defense makes a credible case, under the law the jury MUST acquit.

 

[Man of Ethics]

It's not about "credible cases". The prosecution has to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defense makes a credible case, under the law the jury MUST acquit.

I mean, in most cases a juror can make good arguments either for Defense or Prosecution.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I mean, in most cases a juror can make good arguments either for Defense or Prosecution.

If that's the case, the prosecution hasn't done its job.
I've served as a juror on five trials over the years and I never thought the defense and prosecution had equally good cases. One was always better than the other. Unfortunately, in a couple of the trials the prosecution didn't make the case against what I thought were obviously guilty defendants and we had to acquit them.

Under the law, jurors don't have the luxury of voting their conscience, they have to follow the law.

 

[Bezukhov]

If that's the case, the prosecution hasn't done its job.
I've served as a juror on five trials over the years and I never thought the defense and prosecution had equally good cases. One was always better than the other. Unfortunately, in a couple of the trials the prosecution didn't make the case against what I thought were obviously guilty defendants and we had to acquit them.

Under the law, jurors don't have the luxury of voting their conscience, they have to follow the law.

It's sometime between 1840 - 1850, I'm an ardent Abolitionist, serving on a jury trying someone for the crime, er, noble cause of helping a slave find freedom. Wild horses wouldn't drag a guilty verdict from me.

 

[AZrailwhale]

It's sometime between 1840 - 1850, I'm an ardent Abolitionist, serving on a jury trying someone for the crime, er, noble cause of helping a slave find freedom. Wild horses wouldn't drag a guilty verdict from me.

Then you'd be be wrong. Morally right, but wrong. You would never survive vior dire if you were honest about your feelings. A juror takes an oath to judge the defendant SOLEY upon the evidence presented in court. What if it's flipped and you are judging a slave catcher for the murder of a member of the Underground Railway? Would you want an ardent anti-abolitionist allowing the murderer to go free because of HIS feelings on slavery? Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason, justice has to be objective, not subjective to have a meaning.