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

61–70 of 449 posts

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#61

Post by CoastalCoder »

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…

> Juries are generally charged with determining matters of fact; the judge matters of law.

I've always found this deeply troubling. If the law isn't clear enough for 12 jurors to determine if an act was legal, then how is it possibly just to hold the accused liable transgressing it?

I don't see much practical difference between this and ex-post facto laws. In both cases, a person can be convicted for an act that wasn't obviously illegal at the time.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#62

Post by mattkrause »

cogman10 wrote: post #52
idontwantthis wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why downvoted. This is true.

So long as the juror isn't a complete moron, it won't happen. To get to the point where a juror is convicted of perjury, you need one of the other jurors to turn them in to the judge. Something that can pretty much only happen at the end of the trial (since the jurors are barred from speaking to anyone about the case.)

Even that won’t work because jurors aren’t allowed to testify about their deliberations (with a few irrelevant exceptions).

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#63

Post by bpodgursky »

dathinab wrote: post #13
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.

This is why a judge can bring in a jury from outside of the community. But yes, the US law system is deeply flawed in many many ways, and most of it is intentionally (through also historically).

Yes, most of the flaws in the US law system allow guilty people to go unpunished.

This was an intentional choice, to err on the side of assuming innocence rather than guilt.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#64

Post by agotterer »

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 wasn’t trying to get out jury duty, but knowing my juror rights had me excused.

When the lawyers went around the room asking questions, one of the questions was something along the lines of “will you uphold the law as the judge describes it”. 40 odd people leading up to me all said yes, and then I said “maybe”.

I was asked to step outside to discuss my answer. I pretty much said “I know my rights as a juror and if a law is unjust it’s my duty to say so”. They said I could go home after that.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#66

Post by tptacek »

Alex3917 wrote: post #54
tptacek wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The reason they ask you questions like whether or not you would be able to find someone guilty if you knew they might get sentenced to death isn't because they want to put you in jail overnight. They just don't want you on the jury.

Sure, but that's not the same thing as saying you won't vote to convict under any circumstances.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#68

Post by ninkendo »

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 readership is large enough that we’ve pretty much regressed to the mean with respect to critical thinking. I don’t think HN readers are statistically better than average here, there’s just too many of us for that to be possible.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#69

Post by bpodgursky »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #61
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; the judge matters of law. I've always found this deeply troubling. If the law isn't clear enough for 12 jurors to determine if an act was legal, then how is it possibly just to hold the accused liable transgressing it? I don't see much practical difference between this and ex-post facto laws. In both cases, a person can be convicted for an act that wasn…

It's not a matter of determining the law; more often than not it's determining who is lying.

Sometimes this is relatively easy ("you left blood with your DNA at the scene") and sometimes hard (you have 3 eyewitnesses, they have 7 people claiming an alibi).

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#70

Post by nsxwolf »

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.

How? You just keep it to yourself.
Post reply on HN