Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 137 posts

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#11

Post by Cushman »

colanderman wrote: post #4

"Last year, Montana prosecutors were forced to offer a defendant in a marijuana case a favorable plea bargain after so many potential jurors said they would nullify that the judge didn’t think he could find enough jurors to hear the case." I don't get it; jurors are selected based on how they claim will decide ? That's all kinds of messed up.

Before getting selected, they outline the case and ask if you know of any reason you couldn't be a fair and impartial juror on this case. Conflicts of interest, etc. At this point, saying "I won't convict for marijuana possession or use under any circumstances" is allowed, but could easily disqualify you depending on how the judge is feeling. Certainly the prosecutor is gonna feel some pressure to cut a deal.

Yeah, it is a little weird, but it's hard to think of a way to fix it without making it potentially much more abusive.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#12

Post by colanderman »

adestefan wrote: post #7
colanderman wrote: post #4

"Last year, Montana prosecutors were forced to offer a defendant in a marijuana case a favorable plea bargain after so many potential jurors said they would nullify that the judge didn’t think he could find enough jurors to hear the case." I don't get it; jurors are selected based on how they claim will decide ? That's all kinds of messed up.

Juries are to be impartial and decide only upon the evidence that is put forth by the prosecutor and defendant as it relates to the charges and the law that defines those charges. If a juror states up front that they'll vote one way or another, without hearing the evidence, based on some prejudice then they will be disqualified.

Juries are to be impartial

But selecting juries based on that trait (or any trait for that matter) is in direct conflict with one's right to trial by a jury of his peers (presumably defined as the general populace). Once you predicate the selection process, you skew a uniform sampling of "peers" and the jurors selected are no longer representative of one's "peers".

(Not arguing, just trying to understand.)

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#13

Post by andrewla »

[deleted] wrote: post #9

[deleted]

I mean, it's not even halfway through the article:

"There have been unfortunate instances of nullification. Racist juries in the South, for example, refused to convict people who committed violent acts against civil-rights activists, and nullification has been used in cases involving the use of excessive force by the police. But nullification is like any other democratic power; some people may try to misuse it, but that does not mean it should be taken away from everyone else."

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#14

Post by burgerbrain »

[deleted] wrote: post #9

[deleted]

These aren't issues with nullification, they are issues with the "jury of your peers" system in general.

Of course that, like democracy, is often deemed to be off limits for criticism simply because a few hundred years ago we agreed it was the best idea around.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#15

Post by gwern »

unoti wrote: post #3

When the shabby old man is put on trial for jury tampering, shouldn't a jury of his peers find him not guilty? The deliberation on that trial could be very interesting. Or very difficult because the judge won't let the defendant's counsel say anything. Or both.

Court-appointed counsel isn't known for its quality, and when your own lawyer is apparently contemptuous of jury nullifications ("silly leaflets"), it's not looking too good.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#16

Post by healsdata »

[deleted] wrote: post #9

[deleted]

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but did you read the article before commenting? Your exact example is mentioned in the article and the author gives their opinion; they would rather we have jury nullification with the potential downfalls than not have it.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#17

Post by colanderman »

mindcrime wrote: post #10
colanderman wrote: post #4

"Last year, Montana prosecutors were forced to offer a defendant in a marijuana case a favorable plea bargain after so many potential jurors said they would nullify that the judge didn’t think he could find enough jurors to hear the case." I don't get it; jurors are selected based on how they claim will decide ? That's all kinds of messed up.

It probably varies by state (or not), but the last time I was on a jury, the jury selection process went like this: 1. 12 jurors are seated. 2. the prosecution asks questions of the jurors, either as a group (eg, "raise your hand if X") or individually. 3. the defense does the same thing 4. the prosecution can excuse any jurors they think are not suited for the case 5. the defense can do likewise 6. If less than 12 j…

Thanks. I've never been on a jury so I'm totally unaware of the selection process. It seems less unfair that both sides get to excuse jurors; still, on average, it seems it would drastically skew the pool of jurors away from a random sample of the general populace.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#18

Post by eternalban »

[deleted] wrote: post #9

[deleted]

The issue addressed is not one of judicial efficacy or reliability. It is, yet again, another instance of placing limits on systems that apply "rule of law". So the specimen of a "clearly unjust" action being ignored by a jury of "one's peers" is a red-herring. A people deserve their government and structural forms such trial by jury are designed precisely to deliver them that government, without undue oppression.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#19

Post by andrewla »

mindcrime wrote: post #10
colanderman wrote: post #4

"Last year, Montana prosecutors were forced to offer a defendant in a marijuana case a favorable plea bargain after so many potential jurors said they would nullify that the judge didn’t think he could find enough jurors to hear the case." I don't get it; jurors are selected based on how they claim will decide ? That's all kinds of messed up.

It probably varies by state (or not), but the last time I was on a jury, the jury selection process went like this: 1. 12 jurors are seated. 2. the prosecution asks questions of the jurors, either as a group (eg, "raise your hand if X") or individually. 3. the defense does the same thing 4. the prosecution can excuse any jurors they think are not suited for the case 5. the defense can do likewise 6. If less than 12 j…

I was called up for jury selection in Manhattan, and this was my experience. They asked if anyone had a problem with the law in question (it was a drug case) and then asked if I would be able to return a guilty verdict.

I was not paneled on the jury. In my case, a large number (>100) jurors were dismissed for what did not appear to be any reason, so it may have been something else I said or something I wrote on the questionnaire they gave us. I was also surprised by the number of dismissed jurors, since I was led to believe (mostly, I think, by Law & Order) that there was a limit on the peremptory dismissals.

On the elevator on the way out, other dismissed jurors congratulated my on a novel way to avoid jury duty. This annoyed me, since I would have really liked to have been on that jury. Although I agree with the article that juries should have more powerful, I don't see how a believer in nullification can get on a jury without lying.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#20

Post by karamazov »

burgerbrain wrote: post #14
[deleted] wrote: post #9

[deleted]

These aren't issues with nullification, they are issues with the "jury of your peers" system in general. Of course that, like democracy, is often deemed to be off limits for criticism simply because a few hundred years ago we agreed it was the best idea around.

Do you have an example of a better idea?
Post reply on HN