Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No • Hacker News Board

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#31

Post by rbanffy » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 7:18 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #10

colanderman wrote: post #4

"Last year, Montana prosecutors were forced to offer a defendant in a marijuana case a favorable plea bargain after so many potential jurors said they would nullify that the judge didn’t think he could find enough jurors to hear the case." I don't get it; jurors are selected based on how they claim will decide ? That's all kinds of messed up.

It probably varies by state (or not), but the last time I was on a jury, the jury selection process went like this: 1. 12 jurors are seated. 2. the prosecution asks questions of the jurors, either as a group (eg, "raise your hand if X") or individually. 3. the defense does the same thing 4. the prosecution can excuse any jurors they think are not suited for the case 5. the defense can do likewise 6. If less than 12 j…

Good lawyers will excuse jurors based on how they will likely relate to the case being presented. For instance, here in Brazil, most defense lawyers will excuse jurors of Japanese origin based on the idea they would impose tougher moral standards than other groups.

Lawyers are obliged to always offer the best possible defense to the extent of their abilities, and that includes selecting a biased jury if that's possible.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#32

Post by elecengin » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 7:22 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #10

colanderman wrote: post #4

"Last year, Montana prosecutors were forced to offer a defendant in a marijuana case a favorable plea bargain after so many potential jurors said they would nullify that the judge didn’t think he could find enough jurors to hear the case." I don't get it; jurors are selected based on how they claim will decide ? That's all kinds of messed up.

It probably varies by state (or not), but the last time I was on a jury, the jury selection process went like this: 1. 12 jurors are seated. 2. the prosecution asks questions of the jurors, either as a group (eg, "raise your hand if X") or individually. 3. the defense does the same thing 4. the prosecution can excuse any jurors they think are not suited for the case 5. the defense can do likewise 6. If less than 12 j…

This is called voire dire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection#Voir_dire

The plaintiff / defense teams are allowed to remove an limited number of jurors unless the removal is among a list of valid exempt causes (in which case the removal is exempt from the limit). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge

The process can become very very thought out in high profile cases - there are psychologists hired to advise litigators on how favorable a potential jury member might be, and the list of potential jurors for a given day can be retrieved ahead of time and background checks run each one (all within the rules).

Here is an intresting article from one of these "Jury experts" discussing the process: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/youraba/201103articl...

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#33

Post by naner » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 7:22 PM UTC

dreeves wrote: post #25

Ooh, I got kicked off a grand jury a couple years ago for telling my fellow jurors about jury nullification. I pointed them to this etherpad -- http://padm.us/jury -- where I was researching the question. I wasn't even sure at the time what the right answer was. I'm now very much pro-nullification.

I pointed them to this etherpad [...] where I was researching the question. I wasn't even sure at the time what the right answer was.

Was this after you were selected to serve on the jury? They usually make it pretty clear that you are not permitted to do outside research on the case or the laws in question.

Also if jury nullification is important to the defendant's case then it would be the job of their attorney to make sure the jury is aware of that choice.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#34

Post by lutorm » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 7:23 PM UTC

andylei wrote: post #22

unoti wrote: post #3

When the shabby old man is put on trial for jury tampering, shouldn't a jury of his peers find him not guilty? The deliberation on that trial could be very interesting. Or very difficult because the judge won't let the defendant's counsel say anything. Or both.

> shouldn't a jury of his peers find him not guilty that depends on whether or not he is guilty of jury tampering. wikipedia says that it is "attempting to influence the composition and/or decisions of a jury during the course of a trial". i don't have all the details, but it sounds kind of like that's exactly what that guy is trying to do.

The article didn't argue that he wasn't guilty of that, it argued that constitutional free speech rights take precedence over it.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#35

Post by ejames » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 7:24 PM UTC

colanderman wrote: post #4

"Last year, Montana prosecutors were forced to offer a defendant in a marijuana case a favorable plea bargain after so many potential jurors said they would nullify that the judge didn’t think he could find enough jurors to hear the case." I don't get it; jurors are selected based on how they claim will decide ? That's all kinds of messed up.

It's worth remembering that jury nullification is a two-way street.

Nullification is most famous for its history in racially-charged trials in the American South. Southern jurors would refuse to enforce criminal laws if the accused was white and the victim black. Nullified jury cases were one of the tensions that led to the American Civil War.

That's one of the justifications for the power to dismiss jurors - for the sake of justice, law must also have the power to protect minorities who are very unpopular, even, and indeed especially, if the unpopularity is so severe that very few randomly selected people would agree to enforce a law on the minority's behalf.

The problem, of course, is that just because there is no guarantee that nullifiers are right, it does not follow that they are wrong either. However, because jury nullification has its greatest historical significance in the United States when it was used to persecute blacks, legal doctrines which support jury nullification are, by association, not very popular, while legal tactics which allow prosecutors to make their case in the face of potential jury nullification are considered acceptable.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#36

Post by powertower » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 7:28 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #10

colanderman wrote: post #4

"Last year, Montana prosecutors were forced to offer a defendant in a marijuana case a favorable plea bargain after so many potential jurors said they would nullify that the judge didn’t think he could find enough jurors to hear the case." I don't get it; jurors are selected based on how they claim will decide ? That's all kinds of messed up.

It probably varies by state (or not), but the last time I was on a jury, the jury selection process went like this: 1. 12 jurors are seated. 2. the prosecution asks questions of the jurors, either as a group (eg, "raise your hand if X") or individually. 3. the defense does the same thing 4. the prosecution can excuse any jurors they think are not suited for the case 5. the defense can do likewise 6. If less than 12 j…

> And the questions the prosecution asks are often framed like "Is there any reason you would fundamentally be unable to return a 'guilty' verdict in this case?" or "is X a reason you would not be able to return a 'guilty' verdict?" etc.

In my case it was a civil trial and he (the plaintiff's attorney) asked everyone to raise their hands if they thought they could follow the instructions of the court.

I kept my hand down.

He told me to raise my hand.

I told him I had some opinions on jury nullification.

He looked at the judge.

The judge didn't say anything.

He then asked me what my opinions were.

I said what I thought the definition was for "jury nullification", and that ultimately I have no problems disregarding the instructions of the court.

I was then, most immediately, dismissed from jury duty. The first person out of that room.

It was very nerve wrecking having to do that (being in the court room for the first time, and all that). But worth it.

*The case was something about the "fair value" of someone's property that was taken by the state (and DOT) due to road construction ("eminent domain" maybe).

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#37

Post by tvon » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 7:31 PM UTC

> But nullification is like any other democratic power; some people may try to misuse it, but that does not mean it should be taken away from everyone else.

It has been my impression that we increasingly live in a world where rights can be taken away from the many to deter abuse by the few.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#38

Post by DougWebb » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 7:31 PM UTC

andylei wrote: post #22

unoti wrote: post #3

When the shabby old man is put on trial for jury tampering, shouldn't a jury of his peers find him not guilty? The deliberation on that trial could be very interesting. Or very difficult because the judge won't let the defendant's counsel say anything. Or both.

> shouldn't a jury of his peers find him not guilty that depends on whether or not he is guilty of jury tampering. wikipedia says that it is "attempting to influence the composition and/or decisions of a jury during the course of a trial". i don't have all the details, but it sounds kind of like that's exactly what that guy is trying to do.

That's not at all what he was doing. He wasn't trying to influence a jury, he was trying to educate them to let them know about a third option they have. It's still up to them whether or not to use it. He also wasn't influencing any particular jury, or an active jury. He was giving leaflets to potential jurors.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#39

Post by bhousel » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 7:31 PM UTC

gwern wrote: post #15

unoti wrote: post #3

When the shabby old man is put on trial for jury tampering, shouldn't a jury of his peers find him not guilty? The deliberation on that trial could be very interesting. Or very difficult because the judge won't let the defendant's counsel say anything. Or both.

Court-appointed counsel isn't known for its quality, and when your own lawyer is apparently contemptuous of jury nullifications ("silly leaflets"), it's not looking too good.

Guy should dismiss his counsel and go pro se. 99% of the time I'd say that's a crazy idea, but in this situation I'm not so sure...

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#40

Post by jrockway » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 7:33 PM UTC

andylei wrote: post #22

unoti wrote: post #3

When the shabby old man is put on trial for jury tampering, shouldn't a jury of his peers find him not guilty? The deliberation on that trial could be very interesting. Or very difficult because the judge won't let the defendant's counsel say anything. Or both.

> shouldn't a jury of his peers find him not guilty that depends on whether or not he is guilty of jury tampering. wikipedia says that it is "attempting to influence the composition and/or decisions of a jury during the course of a trial". i don't have all the details, but it sounds kind of like that's exactly what that guy is trying to do.

The author of this article is doing the same thing. The law should be worded so as to refer to a specific juror and a specific trial. If I call Juror #5 at home and tell him I'll kill his family if he convicts, that's jury tampering. If I'm a writer handing out a leaflet about the history of jury nullification, then that's free speech. Even if I do it near a courthouse.

The courts have ruled that free speech should be limited in some cases, but yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and educating fellow citizens about our legal system are pretty different cases, even if the second one could influence the results of a trial.