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

21–30 of 137 posts

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#21

Post by stan_rogers »

colanderman wrote: post #12
adestefan wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

The "jury of your peers" concept isn't part of United States law at all. It is a part of British Common Law, but the governing rule in the US is the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which provides only for "an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed".

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#22

Post by andylei »

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.

> shouldn't a jury of his peers find him not guilty

that depends on whether or not he is guilty of jury tampering. wikipedia says that it is "attempting to influence the composition and/or decisions of a jury during the course of a trial". i don't have all the details, but it sounds kind of like that's exactly what that guy is trying to do.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#23

Post by adestefan »

colanderman wrote: post #12
adestefan wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

It's called impartiality and is the notion that you should be judged based only upon objective criteria that is delivered by your accuser. In the US, impartiality is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment. Note, that the US Constitution does not say anything about a "jury of peers."

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#24

Post by rdtsc »

andrewla wrote: post #19
mindcrime wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 q…

However they can't stop you from changing your mind.

If they didn't ask if you "won't have a problem when it comes to deliberations" you can reasonably start disagreeing with the law the more you understand how this law is applied to real people in real cases.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#25

Post by dreeves »

Ooh, I got kicked off a grand jury a couple years ago for telling my fellow jurors about jury nullification. I pointed them to this etherpad -- http://padm.us/jury -- where I was researching the question. I wasn't even sure at the time what the right answer was.

I'm now very much pro-nullification.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#26

Post by impendia »

I served as a juror on a ten week murder trial, and one thing I learned (to my extreme exasperation) is that you can't ask questions. I mean, you can ask, but every time I asked anything the judge gave some roundabout non-answer, and it was obvious that she was required to do so.

In particular, the verdict hinged on some technicalities, and we got about 40 pages explaining the law. I attempted to clarify the exact meaning, but in the end eleven others and I were forced to decide for ourselves.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#27

Post by mindcrime »

andrewla wrote: post #19
mindcrime wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 q…

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.

Yeah, I had more or less the same thought. In my own case, I do believe in Jury Nullification; it just happened that the case was a property crime case (breaking and entering, larceny) which is one of the areas where the law seems reasonably just. So I didn't speak up or anything, and ultimately did serve on the jury.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#28

Post by dfxm12 »

gwern wrote: post #15
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.

I don't think the lawyers are implying that they are contemptuous of jury nullification with this strategy. I think they are trying to downplay the impact of the leaflets, playing their client off as a goofy old man with silly ideas that everyone would ignore like a beggar.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#29

Post by pnathan »

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 stood for a juror in county court a few years back. This was pretty much the process followed.

It was very focused on being impartial and following the law.

I think different courts and jury stylings have different rules, but I am unsure where and how.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#30

Post by squozzer »

I would suggest to anyone interested in the topic to read The Trial of John Peter Zenger. It represents an extreme case of judicial process manipulation that would have been very difficult to defeat without the help of a sympathetic jury.

As the Joe Fridays of the world are very eager to point out, nullification DOES subvert the rule of law. So I don't support its' use for every situation. But bad laws and rigged justice also undermine the rule of law -- we still have bad laws (drug offenses, generally) and rigged justice (the Duke lacrosse team case, more of an attempt at rigged justice) even today.

That said, nullification is not that powerful of a threat to the system, because the system has ways of dealing with partiality such as voir dire, change of venue, rules of evidence.

The lengths NY state is going to silence free speech and enforce the "blinders of fact" principle seem a little extreme.

Just remember -- the law is meant to serve the people, not the other way around.

Post reply on HN