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

41–50 of 137 posts

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#41

Post by burgerbrain »

karamazov wrote: post #20
burgerbrain wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Suggestions need not come in the form of fully formed plans. However the public is largely not open to suggestions for incremental improvements.

An easy improvement to the jury system would be to ensure all jurors are aware of the relevant rules. For example, they should all be aware that nullification is a legal option. Related to this, the system by which jurors are selected needs an overhaul so heavy that we might as well scrap the current system.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#43

Post by scarmig »

squozzer wrote: post #30

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 jus…

The big issue I see with nullification is that, once you grant it is justified unjust laws, you make it so that any law can be nullified in a given case, depending on the particular jury selected.

Good! you might say. But now imagine you're in the rural South, trying a case of what was effectively a lynching. If you say that jurors can ignore the facts of the case and the law, no matter how much evidence you offer that a particular person is a murderer, they can ignore it for white supremacy.

This is on top of issues about fairness and equal application of the law. Whether and how much you're punished would vary even more depending on the makeup of the jury, even if the crime is the exact same.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#44

Post by colanderman »

stan_rogers wrote: post #21
colanderman wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Interesting. I could have sworn we learned the "jury of your peers" thing in school.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#45

Post by Jtsummers »

scarmig wrote: post #43
squozzer wrote: post #30

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 jus…

The big issue I see with nullification is that, once you grant it is justified unjust laws, you make it so that any law can be nullified in a given case, depending on the particular jury selected. Good! you might say. But now imagine you're in the rural South, trying a case of what was effectively a lynching. If you say that jurors can ignore the facts of the case and the law, no matter how much evidence you offer th…

If a defense attorney succeeded in filling the jury with white supremacists I suspect the case would be thrown out earlier and retried.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#46

Post by tsotha »

I understand why people wouldn't want to be part of the system that punishes people for something the juror doesn't think should be illegal. But it isn't your job, as a juror, to write the laws. The honorable thing to do is to answer truthfully when they ask you if you can apply the law in the case you've been assigned.

Having said that, let me say I think prosecuting a guy for handing out nullification leaflets is a gross abuse of power.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#47

Post by cynicalkane »

Jury nullification is typically portrayed as a defense against unjust laws, and some judicial thinkers see it that way.

But it's important to point out the dominant view and the current view of jurisprudence views jury nullification as kind of an unfortunate edge case. Here's the Fourth Circuit from 1969:

"We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."

In other words, jury nullification is not a defense against injustice, but a side effect of having trials by an independent jury of ordinary citizens.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#48

Post by burgerbrain »

tsotha wrote: post #46

I understand why people wouldn't want to be part of the system that punishes people for something the juror doesn't think should be illegal. But it isn't your job, as a juror, to write the laws. The honorable thing to do is to answer truthfully when they ask you if you can apply the law in the case you've been assigned. Having said that, let me say I think prosecuting a guy for handing out nullification leaflets is a…

You realize that jury nullification is a legal part of the system right? "But it isn't your job, as a juror, to write the laws." might be what a judge tells a jury, but that doesn't make it true.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#49

Post by acabal »

tsotha wrote: post #46

I understand why people wouldn't want to be part of the system that punishes people for something the juror doesn't think should be illegal. But it isn't your job, as a juror, to write the laws. The honorable thing to do is to answer truthfully when they ask you if you can apply the law in the case you've been assigned. Having said that, let me say I think prosecuting a guy for handing out nullification leaflets is a…

But that's what (correct me if I'm wrong) nullification is for: to allow the jury as a unit an independent mind, and to not force them to enforce laws they believe to be unjust. Their job is definitely not to write laws, but the founding fathers seemed to think part of their job was also--to a limited extent--another check and balance against the system.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#50

Post by rada »

cynicalkane wrote: post #47

Jury nullification is typically portrayed as a defense against unjust laws, and some judicial thinkers see it that way. But it's important to point out the dominant view and the current view of jurisprudence views jury nullification as kind of an unfortunate edge case. Here's the Fourth Circuit from 1969: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to…

The very first thing that wikipedia says about jury nullification paints it as much more than "an unfortunate edge case":

A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of acquittals develops [...] it can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.

Post reply on HN