A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue • Hacker News Board

Re: A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue

#11

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 8:56 PM UTC

underseacables wrote: post #3

I’ve heard so many conflicting conclusions on jury nullification, with mini saying it’s illegal. Is that true? Is it illegal for a juror to stand up and say we should vote not guilty because the law is wrong, or the cause is just?

> with mini saying it’s illegal

In the U.S., it is illegal to advocate for it while on a jury. It’s also standard for potential jurors to be asked about it in an indirect way.

As long as we have juries, nullification will exist. It’s a bad mechanism for the rule of law, however. And if a judge suspects nullification is afoot, they will generally call a mistrial.

Re: A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue

#12

Post by epicureanideal » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

phnofive wrote: post #2

A prosecutor's guide to winning in voir dire: https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/ORANGE_Training_M...

I wonder if we would get better outcomes if the jury were randomly selected. Otherwise based on this link we don’t seem to be getting a jury of our peers, but a jury of selected peers with specific biases not present in the same proportion as the general population.

Re: A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue

#13

Post by coyotespike » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

underseacables wrote: post #3

I’ve heard so many conflicting conclusions on jury nullification, with mini saying it’s illegal. Is that true? Is it illegal for a juror to stand up and say we should vote not guilty because the law is wrong, or the cause is just?

No, passing a law against jurors advocating for jury nullification would probably be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.

In addition, there are incredibly strong norms against penalizing jurors, except for clear misconduct such as taking bribes, or conducting outside research. Founder of Pennsylvania William Penn's trial sticks in my mind here for some reason.

As a result, in the US, it does not vary by jurisdiction. What does vary is how clearly each jurisdiction supports jury nullification. Some have considered requiring the judge to inform the jury of their right to nullify, others not so much.

Anyway, advocate away, you are perfectly safe, and if you weren't you would have multiple highly motivated legal organizations (like the ACLU, but also others) on your side.

Re: A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue

#14

Post by steve76 » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 9:58 PM UTC

Thief. Crook. Liar. Coward. Murderer. Traitor. Why should anyone listen to leadership anymore? Just to get berated all their lives, and then watch the people they worked so hard cuck out to drunken junkies. Why work hard for whatever they are selling when a lawless mob is going to burn it all down while they applaud. Die die die die die.

Re: A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue

#15

Post by mnrode » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 10:22 PM UTC

epicureanideal wrote: post #12

phnofive wrote: post #2

A prosecutor's guide to winning in voir dire: https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/ORANGE_Training_M...

I wonder if we would get better outcomes if the jury were randomly selected. Otherwise based on this link we don’t seem to be getting a jury of our peers, but a jury of selected peers with specific biases not present in the same proportion as the general population.

AFAIK, the idea is that both sides, defense and prosecution, are part of that selection process. The prosecution may want to eject every juror that does not believe the testimony of police officers, but the defense wants to keep those jurors in. Both sides keep each other in check.

A totally random jury selection could cause issues. For example, when it comes to a murder trial where race is a big issue, the prosecution and/or the defense may not want someone in the jury that is openly racist.

Re: A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue

#16

Post by stickfigure » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 10:30 PM UTC

mnrode wrote: post #15

epicureanideal wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if we would get better outcomes if the jury were randomly selected. Otherwise based on this link we don’t seem to be getting a jury of our peers, but a jury of selected peers with specific biases not present in the same proportion as the general population.

AFAIK, the idea is that both sides, defense and prosecution, are part of that selection process. The prosecution may want to eject every juror that does not believe the testimony of police officers, but the defense wants to keep those jurors in. Both sides keep each other in check. A totally random jury selection could cause issues. For example, when it comes to a murder trial where race is a big issue, the prosecuti…

You're right, but in fact the judge can put their finger on one side of the scales. I was in voir dire for an obvious drug prosecution and before selection began, the judge eliminated anyone who thought the laws should be changed. That was in the late 90s in a (US) federal court.

Re: A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue

#17

Post by pyuser583 » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 11:45 PM UTC

Why does the author think the defendants actions were proportionate?

Proportionate means the good done outweighs the bad. But what good was accomplished by defendants actions?

To be proportionate, one has to consider and exclude actions with lesser bad effects. In this case, peacefully protesting and not harming anyone’s property.

If they had vigorously protested, but not harmed any property, would it fail to stop the bad effect?

Did their actions change Shells behavior? Does Shell even care? I’m betting their insurance company cares a lot more.

Edit: it also seems very unfair the defendant who pleaded guilty.

Re: A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue

#18

Post by Armisael16 » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 11:56 PM UTC

nickcox wrote: post #6

underseacables wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For simplicity sake, let’s use federal court.

I imagine it would still depend on the jurisdiction?

It doesn’t and can’t as long as the jurors don’t have to explain their decision.

Re: A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue

#19

Post by bsder » Mon, Jun 21, 2021, 12:21 AM UTC

epicureanideal wrote: post #12

phnofive wrote: post #2

A prosecutor's guide to winning in voir dire: https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/ORANGE_Training_M...

I wonder if we would get better outcomes if the jury were randomly selected. Otherwise based on this link we don’t seem to be getting a jury of our peers, but a jury of selected peers with specific biases not present in the same proportion as the general population.

I would go with random but with limited strikes on prosecution and unlimited strikes for defense.

I want to bias things in favor of defense. If the prosecution can't make the case given all their advantages, they should fail.

Re: A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue

#20

Post by lugged » Mon, Jun 21, 2021, 1:28 AM UTC

mnrode wrote: post #15

epicureanideal wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if we would get better outcomes if the jury were randomly selected. Otherwise based on this link we don’t seem to be getting a jury of our peers, but a jury of selected peers with specific biases not present in the same proportion as the general population.

AFAIK, the idea is that both sides, defense and prosecution, are part of that selection process. The prosecution may want to eject every juror that does not believe the testimony of police officers, but the defense wants to keep those jurors in. Both sides keep each other in check. A totally random jury selection could cause issues. For example, when it comes to a murder trial where race is a big issue, the prosecuti…

We don't live in a binary world.

All this does is push precedent in one of two directions.