21–30 of 449 posts
Simiarly: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-abortion-zones/...
I wonder what portion of jurors know what jury nullification is? I've always thought I could simply utter those words and get out of any jury duty. Not that I would, I would love to serve on a jury. I also wonder how many HN readers would be allowed on a jury?
> I also wonder how many HN readers would be allowed on a jury? I served on a jury. Can’t imagine why any given HN user wouldn’t be allowed…
If jury nullification doesn’t exist, then juries are pointless
Juries are generally charged with determining matters of fact; the judge matters of law. Even without jury nullification, a jury still determines whether the person performed a proscribed act, or did so with the requisite intent, etc.
When people talk about jury nullification, they generally mean the act of a jury actually believing that the person committed the act, but let them off because they don't think they should be punished for some other reason.
Seems pretty reasonable result as he wasn’t targeting a specific case. I do think fans of jury nullification overestimate how much juries would be interested in such things.
It doesn’t have to be the entire jury, one juror can hang everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why attorneys get to ask questions of potential jurors and ask for them to be excused.
Lawyer- "Would you nullifiy this verdict due to personal beliefs?" Juror with strong opinions "ohh no, never"
You are under oath during jury selection, right? So I guess that could hypothetically get you into some trouble. Although I'm sure it is pretty much unheard of for them to go after somebody who lied during jury selection questions...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I also wonder how many HN readers would be allowed on a jury? I served on a jury. Can’t imagine why any given HN user wouldn’t be allowed…
There's stereotype that neither prosecuters nor defense attorneys(ies?) want critical thinkers on the jury. Limits their powers of influence.
Is jury nullification the ultimate trump card? From what little I know about it, it seems that if enough people in a community knew about it, they could 100% control what crimes are punished in that community. On face value, that makes a sort of sense intuitively, but obviously it has to be balanced against crimes that are in principle clearly wrong, despite what a local community believes.
They could, for instance, prevent for most of a century most prosecutions for lynching.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why attorneys get to ask questions of potential jurors and ask for them to be excused.
Lawyer- "Would you nullifiy this verdict due to personal beliefs?" Juror with strong opinions "ohh no, never"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why attorneys get to ask questions of potential jurors and ask for them to be excused.
Lawyer- "Would you nullifiy this verdict due to personal beliefs?" Juror with strong opinions "ohh no, never"
If jury nullification doesn’t exist, then juries are pointless
That's just not true, though. I say that without taking a position on the merits of jury nullification. Juries are generally charged with determining matters of fact; the judge matters of law. Even without jury nullification, a jury still determines whether the person performed a proscribed act, or did so with the requisite intent, etc. When people talk about jury nullification, they generally mean the act of a jury…
If that is axiomatic, it's not the constitution of the US. I don't know about other jurisdictions, but it's silent on the exact duties of a jury.