my high school american studies teacher would recommend stating "I firmly believe in the right of jury nullification" to get out of jury duty–he was of the opinion that jurors who voiced their awareness of this right were almost never selected. I'd be curious to know if this was actually true
Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No
131–137 of 137 posts
Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> I don't see how a believer in nullification can get on a jury without lying. If you're going into a case knowing you'll say "guilty" or "not guilty" without actually hearing the facts of the case, you should get kicked off the jury, independent of your belief in jury nullification. If you plan to decide based on both the law and the facts of the case, you should listen very carefully to the questions asked, to ensu…
> Question: "Do you have a problem with the law in question?"
Unspoken thought: "In and of and by itself?" Spoken Answer: "No." Unspoken thought: "I may however have a problem with the application of the law."
Question: "Would you be able to return a guilty verdict?" Spoken Answer: "Yes." Unspoken thought: "If the plantiff can shown what harm the defendant has caused to the non-consenting victim of accused crime."
Update: If the application of the "law" would lead to an unconscionable injustice... such as punishing (or condemning or reprimanding) a human for something which has not harmed anyone against their will.
Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the opinion of a court, which would rather not recognize the concept at all. Courts hold a dim opinion of jury nullification, going so far as to legally sanction mentions of it in a courtroom, and to provide "instructions" to the jury that try to expressly prohibit them from considering anything other than whether the facts of the case meet the law as explained to them. Even hinting that you might understand the c…
Sounds like it's grounds for mistrial because the judges are giving incorrect legal advice, unless the appeal process judges don't like it too. Why can't the judges ask politicians repeal the relevant laws instead of causing mistrials?
It's a mistrial because you're telling the judge he's not important. Of course judges don't like that, they worked their whole life to be a judge, and some jamoke without a law degree shows up talking about jury nullification. That's why you see censures and mistrials.
Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No
#134In Britain jurors can ask questions of witnesses and the accused. At the end of a trial day, the judge will ask if the jury has any questions. When I was on a 3 week trial, I had a page-full of questions every day. I identified issues that both the judge and prosecuting counsel missed.
Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably. If they charge you, are you comfortable with that as your defense?
Very unlikely this would occur. Jury deliberations are considered sacrosanct in American jurence prudence. You are under no obligation to explain your reasoning to anyone when deciding a verdict. And courts have been traditionally very wary of allowing prosecutors to delve too deeply into them to go on fishing expeditions unless a very specific procedure has been shown to have been violated. The prosecution would ess…
This sounds reasonable - but doesn't refute my main point - that nullification, while not a criminal act, can often not be applied without first committing a separate criminal act, and that one should be aware of this fact and take appropriate precautions.
Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No
#136Every objection to jury nullification also applies to prosecutorial discretion yet none of the folks objecting to JN object to PD.
Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No
#137Suppose just 5% of the potential jurors believe, say, that it should not be illegal to kill an abortion doctor, or to beat up someone who dares to be homosexual in public, or to beat up someone who dares to flirt with a white woman while being black, and so on. If you have a jury of 12 and require a unanimous verdict for conviction, then 46% of randomly chosen juries will not convict people for the aforementioned cri…
"Our system is designed around checks and balances"...who make the check and balances ? humans ...which exactly means your current system can never be fair ...that's why all current legal systems are doom, they can never achieve their mission of providing fair justice...for any software code, given the same input, it always only has 1 interpretation and 1 output, but for the legal system, the same case with the same…
I know this is picking nits, but that just simply isn't true. There isn't always the same output for every single input. That's why there's race condition errors. AI Systems will also alter outputs based on the same input (unless you assume that the knowledge base is constant).
Besides that, there is very good reason for justice to have the ability to change course. While humans are writing it, judging it, and punishing it -- they are also committing the crimes which means their actions might not be all that clear cut.