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

31–40 of 449 posts

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#31

Post by tptacek »

Alex3917 wrote: post #10
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.

> People drastically overestimate what will get you moved out of the pool. If you say in voir dire that you wouldn't vote to convict even if the person is guilty, you're not going to get put on a jury.

No, but you might be put in a jail cell overnight for contempt.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#32

Post by bbddg »

j-bos wrote: post #22
duxup wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also wonder how many HN readers would be allowed on a jury? I served on a jury. Can’t imagine why any given HN user wouldn’t be allowed…

There's stereotype that neither prosecuters nor defense attorneys(ies?) want critical thinkers on the jury. Limits their powers of influence.

HN readers should be perfect jury members then.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#33

Post by idontwantthis »

googlryas wrote: post #28
themitigating wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyer- "Would you nullifiy this verdict due to personal beliefs?" Juror with strong opinions "ohh no, never"

Juror then gets a mistrial called and goes to jail for perjury.

Not sure why downvoted. This is true.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#34

Post by CDRdude »

gumby wrote: post #27
mcherm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could, for instance, prevent for most of a century most prosecutions for lynching.

Instead they simply acquitted the defendants in almost all cases, though few were brought.

That’s not an “instead”. What you are describing is what jury nullification is.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#35

Post by SantalBlush »

Buttons840 wrote: post #2

I wonder what portion of jurors know what jury nullification is? I've always thought I could simply utter those words and get out of any jury duty. Not that I would, I would love to serve on a jury. I also wonder how many HN readers would be allowed on a jury?

I served on a grand jury for three months. We listened to police testimony, the DA's office told us the charges, and we voted. Police testimony was all we had to work with when deciding whether or not to indict. It felt like a charade.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#36

Post by throwawaylinux »

mcherm wrote: post #14
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.

They could, for instance, prevent for most of a century most prosecutions for lynching.

Better to leave the law to the self-proclaimed "experts" who wrote and enforced laws permitting slavery for most of a century.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#37

Post by Calavar »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #30
doctorzook wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just not true, though. I say that without taking a position on the merits of jury nullification. Juries are generally charged with determining matters of fact; the judge matters of law. Even without jury nullification, a jury still determines whether the person performed a proscribed act, or did so with the requisite intent, etc. When people talk about jury nullification, they generally mean the act of a jury…

> Juries are generally charged with determining matters of fact If that is axiomatic, it's not the constitution of the US. I don't know about other jurisdictions, but it's silent on the exact duties of a jury.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the idea that juries are for matters of fact comes from English common law. The constitution is a rather barebones framework. There is a lot that it doesn't cover.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#38

Post by daenz »

themitigating wrote: post #12
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.

"Imagine a town didn't like someone of a certain political leaning. They could murder that person and it would only take one jury member.

Reminds me of the killing of Ken McElroy[0]

>In all, there were 46 potential witnesses to the shooting, including Trena McElroy, who was in the truck with her husband when he was shot. No one called for an ambulance. Only Trena claimed to identify a gunman; every other witness either was unable to name an assailant or claimed not to have seen who fired the fatal shots. The DA declined to press charges. An extensive federal investigation did not lead to any charges. Missouri-based journalist Steve Booher described the attitude of some townspeople as "He needed killing."

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy#1981_killing

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#39

Post by foerbert »

doctorzook wrote: post #23
bombcar wrote: post #4

If jury nullification doesn’t exist, then juries are pointless

That's just not true, though. I say that without taking a position on the merits of jury nullification. Juries are generally charged with determining matters of fact; the judge matters of law. Even without jury nullification, a jury still determines whether the person performed a proscribed act, or did so with the requisite intent, etc. When people talk about jury nullification, they generally mean the act of a jury…

It is true.

The only way to preclude jury nullification is to infringe on the rights of the jury as the sole determiners of fact, as you put it.

Without adding another non-jury body that can overrule the jury on what actually happened, how can you ever get rid of the possibility of jury nullification?

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#40

Post by daenz »

googlryas wrote: post #28
themitigating wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyer- "Would you nullifiy this verdict due to personal beliefs?" Juror with strong opinions "ohh no, never"

Juror then gets a mistrial called and goes to jail for perjury.

"Your honor, I had a change of heart during the trial."
Post reply on HN