You, Citizen Have the Constitutional Power to Decide which Laws are Unconstitutional.

[Yurt]

Jury Nullification is not legal.

Any juror who gives any indication that she or he believes in the process will be immediately excused and so will any juror who heard the person say anything about it.

another ignorant comment by jake. of course it is legal. prove it is not legal. back up your claim for once. you don't know what legal means.

 

[Nutz]

Jury Nullification is not legal.

Any juror who gives any indication that she or he believes in the process will be immediately excused and so will any juror who heard the person say anything about it.

another ignorant comment by jake. of course it is legal. prove it is not legal. back up your claim for once. you don't know what legal means.

I think Jake is right whereas it is illegal for a lawyer to argue nullification. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that is the case.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jury Nullification is not legal.

Any juror who gives any indication that she or he believes in the process will be immediately excused and so will any juror who heard the person say anything about it.

another ignorant comment by jake. of course it is legal. prove it is not legal. back up your claim for once. you don't know what legal means.

I think Jake is right whereas it is illegal for a lawyer to argue nullification. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that is the case.

Yurt with his community college education should be asking me every question he can.

The jury has the power but not the moral or legal right to nullify. When a judge can determine if nullification has indeed happened, he can set it aside in case of conviction; in case of not guilty, double jeopardy protections guard the accused unless the perp can be recharged differently in the same court or charged in federal court for other violations.

jury nullification noun common sense judgment, disregard of the law by a body of jurors, independence by judges of the facts, independence by jurymen, independence by reviewers of fact, independence of the law by jurors, jurors' disregard of the law, jurors' independence, paid jurors, professional jurorsBurton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

In the case of Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 15 S. Ct. 273, 39 L. Ed. 343 (1895), it unequivocally determined that, in the federal system at least, there was no right to jury nullification. The opinion noted,

[Juries] have the physical power to disregard the law, as laid down to them by the court. But I deny that … they have the moral right to decide the law according to their own notions or pleasure. On the contrary, I hold it the most sacred constitutional right of every party accused of a crime that the jury should respond as to the facts, and the court as to the law … This is the right of every citizen, and it is his only protection.

In 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a juror's intent to nullify the law was Just Cause for dismissal from the jury.
.
Starting in the early 1990s, a new wave of grass-roots promoters again brought the issue to the forefront, attempting this time to focus on legislation rather than on case law. Several states—including Arizona, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Washington—were unsuccessful in efforts either to introduce or to pass legislation or constitutional amendments that would require judges to instruct jurors of their right to nullify the law. And in 2002, South Dakota voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to institutionalize jury nullification. jury nullification legal definition of jury nullification. jury nullification synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ka-Boom

 

[whitehall]

You always gotta wonder about the abuse directed at the Tea Party by the people who allegedly represent the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Nutz]

another ignorant comment by jake. of course it is legal. prove it is not legal. back up your claim for once. you don't know what legal means.

I think Jake is right whereas it is illegal for a lawyer to argue nullification. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that is the case.

Yurt with his community college education should be asking me every question he can.

The jury has the power but not the moral or legal right to nullify. When a judge can determine if nullification has indeed happened, he can set it aside in case of conviction; in case of not guilty, double jeopardy protections guard the accused unless the perp can be recharged differently in the same court or charged in federal court for other violations.

jury nullification noun common sense judgment, disregard of the law by a body of jurors, independence by judges of the facts, independence by jurymen, independence by reviewers of fact, independence of the law by jurors, jurors' disregard of the law, jurors' independence, paid jurors, professional jurorsBurton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

In the case of Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 15 S. Ct. 273, 39 L. Ed. 343 (1895), it unequivocally determined that, in the federal system at least, there was no right to jury nullification. The opinion noted,

[Juries] have the physical power to disregard the law, as laid down to them by the court. But I deny that … they have the moral right to decide the law according to their own notions or pleasure. On the contrary, I hold it the most sacred constitutional right of every party accused of a crime that the jury should respond as to the facts, and the court as to the law … This is the right of every citizen, and it is his only protection.

In 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a juror's intent to nullify the law was Just Cause for dismissal from the jury.
.
Starting in the early 1990s, a new wave of grass-roots promoters again brought the issue to the forefront, attempting this time to focus on legislation rather than on case law. Several states—including Arizona, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Washington—were unsuccessful in efforts either to introduce or to pass legislation or constitutional amendments that would require judges to instruct jurors of their right to nullify the law. And in 2002, South Dakota voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to institutionalize jury nullification. jury nullification legal definition of jury nullification. jury nullification synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I think you answered the question. I think it is important to note, though, that it would be difficult for any judge to overturn an innocent verdict because of jury nullification.

 

[Yurt]

Jury Nullification is not legal.

Any juror who gives any indication that she or he believes in the process will be immediately excused and so will any juror who heard the person say anything about it.

another ignorant comment by jake. of course it is legal. prove it is not legal. back up your claim for once. you don't know what legal means.

I think Jake is right whereas it is illegal for a lawyer to argue nullification. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that is the case.

jake is dead wrong. he doesn't understand what the word legal means. it is currently legal in many jurisdictions for a jury to nullify a case. fake said it was not legal. that is not true.

while he or you or i may not agree with it, that does not mean it is not legal. it is in fact legal in many jurisdictions.

fakey simply doesn't know his head from his ass. for example, the other day he said the 1st amendment applies ONLY to political speech. don't trust that guy.

 

[Nutz]

another ignorant comment by jake. of course it is legal. prove it is not legal. back up your claim for once. you don't know what legal means.

I think Jake is right whereas it is illegal for a lawyer to argue nullification. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that is the case.

jake is dead wrong. he doesn't understand what the word legal means. it is currently legal in many jurisdictions for a jury to nullify a case. fake said it was not legal. that is not true.

while he or you or i may not agree with it, that does not mean it is not legal. it is in fact legal in many jurisdictions.

fakey simply doesn't know his head from his ass. for example, the other day he said the 1st amendment applies ONLY to political speech. don't trust that guy.

Let me rephrase, Jury Nullification is not a valid legal defense.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Ka-Boom

So why did New Hampshire enumerate the pre-existing legality of this right in 2012?

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/29/new-hampshire-adopts-jury-nullification

 

[thereisnospoon]

I would not serve on a jury. It's not worth my time.

Serving on a Jury is not a choice... thank god... ever wondered why it isn't a choice --- because then everyone would say no and you'd have Trial by Government.

Actually if one is smart and knows how the system works, it's pretty easy to get out of jury duty.
One way is to admit that you use drugs and at that particular time you are unsure if you are under the influence of those drugs or not.
Yes, that is extreme.
Another way is to answer "no" to the question "do you believe you are capable of taking an oath to look at this case objectively and decide based only on the evidence.?"
I can guess judges have heard just about every excuse on the Planet people will use to get of serving on a jury.
Of course the one nearly sure fire way to be excused is to claim financial hardship.

 

[Yurt]

I think Jake is right whereas it is illegal for a lawyer to argue nullification. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that is the case.

jake is dead wrong. he doesn't understand what the word legal means. it is currently legal in many jurisdictions for a jury to nullify a case. fake said it was not legal. that is not true.

while he or you or i may not agree with it, that does not mean it is not legal. it is in fact legal in many jurisdictions.

fakey simply doesn't know his head from his ass. for example, the other day he said the 1st amendment applies ONLY to political speech. don't trust that guy.

Let me rephrase, Jury Nullification is not a valid legal defense.

ok. but that has nothing to do with whether it is legal or not. that is where fakey is confused. he claimed it is not legal. while may not be a valid legal defense, that doesn't mean that in some jurisdictions, juries can nullify the law.

may i suggest you google the issue, because it is actually quite an indepth issue. you seem like a person interested in truth and knowledge, might be worth your while, because i don't know if you will find the answer just on a messageboard. in fact, the issue is still in deep debate across the states and in courts. legal scholars have written numerous articles on it.

 

[Yurt]

Ka-Boom

So why did New Hampshire enumerate the pre-existing legality of this right in 2012?

New Hampshire Adopts Jury Nullification Law - Hit & Run : Reason.com

i would feel bad for jakey being so stupid, perhaps retarded, but he lies so much i have no sympathy for him

 

[The2ndAmendment]

jake is dead wrong. he doesn't understand what the word legal means. it is currently legal in many jurisdictions for a jury to nullify a case. fake said it was not legal. that is not true.

It's only an invalid defense for licensed attorneys.

A man can represent himself and use the Nullification defense, it's been that way since the Trial of William Penn. The Judge may attempt to hoodwink you into Contempt of Court through devious and manipulative questions, but if you "know your way around the block" you'll be fine.

This article explains the limitations of a nullification defense by professional/licensed defense attorneys.

http://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/legal-ethics/opinions/opinion320.cfm

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ka-Boom

So why did New Hampshire enumerate the pre-existing legality of this right in 2012?

New Hampshire Adopts Jury Nullification Law - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Jake, this is what happens when you gloat. You get slapped down. Hard.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I see that one person voted no. I realize that many don't want to serve on a jury. I am willing to do it simply because I know I'll do it honestly. I have respect for our system and understand that the only way it works is to have honest people who respect it and are grateful we have it. Jurors should respect the rules regarding evidence and coming to a verdict. Being bias is a sign of low intelligence, meaning that you'll decide how to vote prior to hearing the evidence just because you are against certain people or have had a bad experience yourself. Even if you were a victim of a crime doesn't mean you will automatically vote guilty. You have to go into it by imagining that it's you on trial and consider what kind of jury you would want, at least if you're innocent. Bias is what allows innocent people to end up in jail and guilty people being allowed to go free. Honest jurors want true justice regardless of who the defendant is or the type of crime. If the wrong person goes to jail, the criminal is still out there ready to strike again. Yea, it's important to get it right and that means caring enough to try.

If you can't put your bias aside, then you are not mature enough to serve, which is why potential jurors are vetted. Shame on those who deliberately lie to get out of it. I guess it's easy for some not to take it seriously because it isn't their butt on the line.

Some countries don't care about justice and just automatically convict people, often for "crimes" like political dissention. Be thankful that we do have rights, but those rights depend on good people answering the call to duty and taking it seriously.

It's bad enough that our own government has opted to suspend our rights at their discretion. Obama can kill citizens without any trial or even charging them. That is unconstitutional and something normally only seen in dictatorships.

Like any right, if people don't appreciate it and demand that it be kept sacred, we all risk losing it forever.

Yea, sometimes it means sitting in a jury box for an indefinite period. No one ever said that it's easy to protect our rights, but it is necessary. Don't be one of those people who figures that it's someone else's problem.

Unconstitutional laws can be stopped in courts if the jury doesn't convict. No one can overturn the jury, though it's been attempted. It is patriotic to ignore unjust laws. Isn't that Obama's stance on immigration laws? Of course, many are taking that stance on Obamacare, hence the pitiful sign up numbers. The rancher is taking that stance with cattle grazing. Many states are challenging gun control laws. The people are meant to have the power, not government.

In a perfect world, you'd be spot on. However, in reading the horror stories from those who've served. The stifling jury rooms. The way court officers treat the jurors with the all the kindness to shown to a skunk in the yard.

 

[Nutz]

Ka-Boom

So why did New Hampshire enumerate the pre-existing legality of this right in 2012?

New Hampshire Adopts Jury Nullification Law - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Jake, this is what happens when you gloat. You get slapped down. Hard.

Did you even read the article? ONE state passed a law allowing jury nullification, and it is vague at that.
ote]

This is definitely a step forward for advocates of jury trial. Allowing counsel to speak directly to the jury about this subject is something that is not allowed in all the courthouses outside of New Hampshire...As noted above, if the attorney’s argument is “too strenuous,” the judge may reprimand the attorney in some way or deliver his own strenuous instruction about how the jurors must ultimately accept the law as described by the court, not the defense.

 

[Nutz]

Incidentally. I didn't vote. If I did, I would have voted no. I never realized there were people who were against the Jury system. It is the norm for me, so why would an article enforce my view of a jury? To be quite frank, I don't really get the premise of this thread.

 

[Duped]

I see that one person voted no. I realize that many don't want to serve on a jury. I am willing to do it simply because I know I'll do it honestly. I have respect for our system and understand that the only way it works is to have honest people who respect it and are grateful we have it. Jurors should respect the rules regarding evidence and coming to a verdict. Being bias is a sign of low intelligence, meaning that you'll decide how to vote prior to hearing the evidence just because you are against certain people or have had a bad experience yourself. Even if you were a victim of a crime doesn't mean you will automatically vote guilty. You have to go into it by imagining that it's you on trial and consider what kind of jury you would want, at least if you're innocent. Bias is what allows innocent people to end up in jail and guilty people being allowed to go free. Honest jurors want true justice regardless of who the defendant is or the type of crime. If the wrong person goes to jail, the criminal is still out there ready to strike again. Yea, it's important to get it right and that means caring enough to try.

If you can't put your bias aside, then you are not mature enough to serve, which is why potential jurors are vetted. Shame on those who deliberately lie to get out of it. I guess it's easy for some not to take it seriously because it isn't their butt on the line.

Some countries don't care about justice and just automatically convict people, often for "crimes" like political dissention. Be thankful that we do have rights, but those rights depend on good people answering the call to duty and taking it seriously.

It's bad enough that our own government has opted to suspend our rights at their discretion. Obama can kill citizens without any trial or even charging them. That is unconstitutional and something normally only seen in dictatorships.

Like any right, if people don't appreciate it and demand that it be kept sacred, we all risk losing it forever.

Yea, sometimes it means sitting in a jury box for an indefinite period. No one ever said that it's easy to protect our rights, but it is necessary. Don't be one of those people who figures that it's someone else's problem.

Unconstitutional laws can be stopped in courts if the jury doesn't convict. No one can overturn the jury, though it's been attempted. It is patriotic to ignore unjust laws. Isn't that Obama's stance on immigration laws? Of course, many are taking that stance on Obamacare, hence the pitiful sign up numbers. The rancher is taking that stance with cattle grazing. Many states are challenging gun control laws. The people are meant to have the power, not government.

I agree, but some of us are honestly biased, and it is incumbent on us to disclose it!

 

[Katzndogz]

I'm not against juries. I've had great luck with juries. I just think jury service should be voluntary. It is close to that now with people getting more knowledgable about evading service.

 

[Yurt]

I'm not against juries. I've had great luck with juries. I just think jury service should be voluntary. It is close to that now with people getting more knowledgable about evading service.

it is so easy to get out of jury duty