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

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#51

Post by WiseWeasel » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 8:02 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 missing the point. The wording of the law is irrelevant if the jury considers it invalid or unjustified; that's the whole purpose of jury nullification.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#52

Post by sophacles » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 8:06 PM UTC

tsotha wrote: post #46

I understand why people wouldn't want to be part of the system that punishes people for something the juror doesn't think should be illegal. But it isn't your job, as a juror, to write the laws. The honorable thing to do is to answer truthfully when they ask you if you can apply the law in the case you've been assigned. Having said that, let me say I think prosecuting a guy for handing out nullification leaflets is a…

Remember, a central idea in the Constitution is a balance of power, often called "a system of checks and balances". Much like the 2nd Amendment, the jury system is partly about preventing the government from taking too much power from the people. Deciding if a law was broken is part of it, true, but there are other aspects. For example one of the reasons for the jury is to decide if mitigating circumstances or evidence are valid enough that a violation of the letter of the law is still acceptable. A bad or unjust law is definitely a mitigating circumstance.

You frequently see people put behind bars or otherwise punished for absurd violations of absurd laws, which even the members of the jury find stupid, because they are told that their opinion of the law doesn't count, even when the law is obviously being applied in an unfair or power grabbing way. Jury nullification is a powerful tool against such abuse and absurdity.

Finally, look into the tenets of the common law system, upon which the US legal system is built. It is surprisingly enlightening, and will probably piss you off a bit at how things are currently being done (alternately, that we having fully purged it depending on your base mindset I guess :) ).

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#53

Post by Natsu » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 8:06 PM UTC

naner wrote: post #33

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…

> 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.

They're not allowed to inform you in most states, as I understand it. I think, however, that there are one or two states which are exceptions in that regard and say something about jurors having the final say in their jury instructions, but it's been quite a while since I've read up on this.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#54

Post by JoshTriplett » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 8:08 PM UTC

cynicalkane wrote: post #47

Jury nullification is typically portrayed as a defense against unjust laws, and some judicial thinkers see it that way. But it's important to point out the dominant view and the current view of jurisprudence views jury nullification as kind of an unfortunate edge case. Here's the Fourth Circuit from 1969: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to…

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 concept will get you thrown off a jury. In some cases, bringing up the concept during jury deliberations will result in a mistrial.

Personally, I like the way the state of Oregon handles the issue. Quoting the Oregon constitution, article I, section 16: "In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial". That said, I don't know whether in practice Oregon courts do any better about not censuring jury nullification.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#55

Post by SilasX » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 8:08 PM UTC

cynicalkane wrote: post #47

Jury nullification is typically portrayed as a defense against unjust laws, and some judicial thinkers see it that way. But it's important to point out the dominant view and the current view of jurisprudence views jury nullification as kind of an unfortunate edge case. Here's the Fourth Circuit from 1969: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to…

No, you're both wrong! It's a defense against injustice and it's a side effect of having trials by an independent jury of ordinary citizens!

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#56

Post by jessriedel » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 8:09 PM UTC

rada wrote: post #50

cynicalkane wrote: post #47

Jury nullification is typically portrayed as a defense against unjust laws, and some judicial thinkers see it that way. But it's important to point out the dominant view and the current view of jurisprudence views jury nullification as kind of an unfortunate edge case. Here's the Fourth Circuit from 1969: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to…

The very first thing that wikipedia says about jury nullification paints it as much more than "an unfortunate edge case": A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of acquittals develops [...] it can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative…

Wikipedia and cynicalkane aren't conflicting. cynicalkane is making a claim about why nullification exists. (It is impossible to prohibit nullification without also giving courts the power to ignore jury decisions based on what they think is in the jurors' heads.) Wikipedia is making a claim about the effect of nullification. (Nullification can effectively repeal laws, a very powerful consequence.)

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#57

Post by redthrowaway » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 8:14 PM UTC

dfxm12 wrote: post #28

gwern wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think the lawyers are implying that they are contemptuous of jury nullification with this strategy. I think they are trying to downplay the impact of the leaflets, playing their client off as a goofy old man with silly ideas that everyone would ignore like a beggar.

I imagine a good lawyer would argue both that the leaflets were harmless, and that it was constitutionally protected speech, as a way of covering all angles.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#58

Post by msbarnett » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 8:15 PM UTC

colanderman wrote: post #17

mindcrime wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks. I've never been on a jury so I'm totally unaware of the selection process. It seems less unfair that both sides get to excuse jurors; still, on average, it seems it would drastically skew the pool of jurors away from a random sample of the general populace.

> still, on average, it seems it would drastically skew the pool of jurors away from a random sample of the general populace.

A jury pool has never been meant to represent a random sample of the general populace.

Indeed that would be enormously counterproductive: in, say, a Klan dominated county we might expect a random sample of the county populace to turn up 9 racists in a sample of 12, but that is not a jury makeup likely to result in a fair verdict for a black defendant.

All of these questioning and dismissal mechanisms exist to make sure that the jury pool is absolutely NOT 12 random people, but is instead as close to a collection of 12 people who are believed to be able to return an impartial verdict as can be reasonably managed in the opinion of the court, by balancing the concerns of both prosecution and defence council.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#59

Post by JoshTriplett » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 8:18 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.

If you're pro-nullification, you should learn more about the kinds of things that will get you kicked off of a jury. Assuming you ever get the opportunity to serve on a jury again, you'd do better to avoid getting yourself kicked off, by not saying anything that indicates you know about nullification or have tendencies that way, and by not doing outside research while serving on a jury. Otherwise, your pro-nullification stance will do you no good.

Re: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

#60

Post by forgotAgain » Wed, Dec 21, 2011, 8:24 PM UTC

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.

I think that's why prosecutors try to scare defendants into plea bargains by charging them with the maximum offenses they can possibly justify. It's better for the prosecutors in these types of cases for the jury to not have a say.