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

Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 449 posts

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#271

Post by refurb »

lesuorac wrote: post #249
refurb wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not my experience at all. And remember, what's good for the prosecutor, is bad for the defense, and vice versa. And each side gets only a handful of dismissals. You waste it on some guy you think is "too smart" and you might not be able to use it on that guy who thinks your client is guilty already.

I think pretty trivially whats good for the prosecutor is not necessarily bad for the defense. i.e. if somebody says they're going to flip a coin to make their decision is going to be bad for both of them. (unless one side thinks they have absolutely no chance). Not a lawyer but I think you have unlimited dismissals [1] its just there's a limit to the number of ones you don't have to provide a reason for. And I'm als…

You’re right, when I say they get a certain number of dismissals, it’s “no questions asked”. But getting a judge to dismiss someone who you don’t feel is sympathetic to your client isn’t going to fly.

So the “no questions asked” dismissals tend to be people who may be sympathetic to either side.

If it’s a murder case the defense may want people who are pro-self defense while the prosecution may not.

Being pro or anti-self defense isn’t in itself a disqualified as long as you can follow jury instructions.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#272

Post by Amezarak »

mcv wrote: post #199
celticninja wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Examples of other countries that don't use jury systems and have better outcomes?

Netherland, for example. There's probably no shortage of other examples. From what I understand, most civil law systems do not rely on juries, or to a much lesser extent than common law systems tend to do. But even many common law countries rely a lot less on juries than the US does, and often with better results than the US with its frequently blatantly racist/classist verdicts. The big problem with juries is that g…

The defendant in the US has the choice of a jury trial or a bench trial. It is not a requirement. The latter has no jury, only a judge. If the defendant chooses a jury trial obviously they think that’s going to have a better outcome for them.

If a verdict is “blatantly” classist or racist, there may be more going on than you’ve read about the case. This is pretty common, US journalism is not great and when cases get reported internationally it usually gets even worse.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#273

Post by AndrewDucker »

Hamuko wrote: post #197
denton-scratch wrote: post #181

The jury's task in a criminal trial is to determine guilt or innocence based on the uncontested facts and the evidence (In the USA, I gather they can also recommend a verdict). That doesn't leave a lot of room for the jury to decide which laws ought to be enforced. I suppose it's reasonable for a jury to decide that a prosecution should not have been brought, even if the criminal act can be shown to have occurred. I…

What is even the point of a jury composed of laymen if their only task is to decipher if a law has been broken? Surely at that point you'd only want lawyers, as in, people with a professional understanding of the law.

The task of the jury is the interpretation of the various evidence to decide the facts of the case. The task of the lawyers is to present the evidence. The task of the judge is to decide the law of the case.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#274

Post by raxxorraxor »

credit_guy wrote: post #266
MerelyMortal wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only quote from him that I know by heart: "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."

First time I hear this quote, and maybe I don't know the context, but as is, it's a pretty bad quote. It implies that in that court, people care only about laws not justice. That may be so, but if that's the case, that's pretty sad, not something to be proud of.

It certainly is, especially because without serving justice the law loses its raison d'être. But on the other hand there are reasons why members of the judiciary need to interpret the law to the letter. If the laws are wrong or unjust, legislative forces need to change them because it is their responsibility.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#275

Post by rjbwork »

credit_guy wrote: post #266
MerelyMortal wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only quote from him that I know by heart: "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."

First time I hear this quote, and maybe I don't know the context, but as is, it's a pretty bad quote. It implies that in that court, people care only about laws not justice. That may be so, but if that's the case, that's pretty sad, not something to be proud of.

It's a description of the legal system as a whole. It does not pursue justice, it merely seeks to enforce the laws as written. And I think it's pretty clear that our laws do not seek justice. For, how can locking up a man - a man who has not yet reached his 20th birthday - for years on end in a concrete box for the "crime" of consuming a plant be just?

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#276

Post by TechBro8615 »

tptacek wrote: post #125
TechBro8615 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is complete BS and I would posit you’re just making things up. Link me to an article about a potential juror spending at least one night in jail due to saying they won’t convict during pre-trial jury selection.

Sure: just search for [voir dire contempt]. The first SERP for me had a law firm page with examples when I looked earlier this evening. I'm not saying it's likely, for what it's worth, but if you lie to avoid jury selection (which is what they're going to think you're doing), it's a possibility.

I got that SERP. The examples are all cases against courts for various violations during _voir dire_. I did not see a single example of a potential juror being jailed for contempt before the trial even started. This isn’t surprising; why would the judge bother holding someone in contempt rather than just moving onto the next potential juror in the pool? It’s not like there is a risk of mistrial from the actions of someone not even participating in it yet.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#277

Post by shadowgovt »

daenz wrote: post #6

Is jury nullification the ultimate trump card? From what little I know about it, it seems that if enough people in a community knew about it, they could 100% control what crimes are punished in that community. On face value, that makes a sort of sense intuitively, but obviously it has to be balanced against crimes that are in principle clearly wrong, despite what a local community believes.

There was a time in England that theft was punishable by the death penalty. When I was younger, I learned that changed because of behavior of criminals under incentives: when stealing the bread is punishable by death, you may as well kill the baker too, to cover your tracks and maximize survival odds.

That might be true, but the more specific issue England (specifically, London) ran into is that trials for theft were trials by jury, and the jury (staring into the eyes of the accused and recognizing a boy of only sixteen in the box) increasingly found thieves innocent rather than having to have the death of a child on their conscience. Facing a situation where theft was functionally un-punishable by law because no jury would convict on a crime like that with a death penalty attached, the merchant class petitioned to have the punishment stricken from that category of crime.

This is, incidentally, why "right to a jury of one's peers" and "right to face one's accuser" are baked into the US Constitution... A lot of actual justice happens at the intersection of the law and the humans who must execute it.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#278

Post by elliekelly »

daenz wrote: post #6

Is jury nullification the ultimate trump card? From what little I know about it, it seems that if enough people in a community knew about it, they could 100% control what crimes are punished in that community. On face value, that makes a sort of sense intuitively, but obviously it has to be balanced against crimes that are in principle clearly wrong, despite what a local community believes.

It’s not the ultimate trump card because a judge can still issue a directed verdict or a judgment as a matter of law which is basically when the judge says “no reasonable jury could have examined the evidence and come to that conclusion”.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#279

Post by ltbarcly3 »

charlieyu1 wrote: post #143
daenz wrote: post #6

Is jury nullification the ultimate trump card? From what little I know about it, it seems that if enough people in a community knew about it, they could 100% control what crimes are punished in that community. On face value, that makes a sort of sense intuitively, but obviously it has to be balanced against crimes that are in principle clearly wrong, despite what a local community believes.

During 2019 protests in Hong Kong, the idea of jury nullification was known to many people, in hopes of setting the protesters free. The government used loopholes so most protest related cases were trialed without jury.

It's unfortunate that Hong Kong didn't codify it's citizens' right to a trial by jury.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#280

Post by kasey_junk »

netheril96 wrote: post #108
kasey_junk wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why in the world would HN readers not be eligible to serve on a jury. I was on a jury trial when a spouse of a prosecutor office employee was allowed on. People drastically overestimate what will get you moved out of the pool.

The defendant attorney didn't kick that jury off?

The prosecutors attested that the spouse had not worked on the case or seen any of the evidence or other documentation for it and that was that.
Post reply on HN