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

71–80 of 449 posts

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#71

Post by cogman10 »

foerbert wrote: post #39
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…

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?

In the US, judges can overturn jury verdicts. That will be appealed to a higher court (which means they need a REALLY good reason to do it).

The most common place for this to happen is in civil court. A jury can come back with "11ty billion dollars" and the judge can decide "Ok, they got a little overzealous with that, $100".

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#72

Post by ch4s3 »

mindcrime wrote: post #55
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 also wonder how many HN readers would be allowed on a jury? I don't know, but I was selected for a jury once. That said, I did not make any particular effort to get out of serving. I answered the voir dire questions honestly, but didn't go out of my way to volunteer something just because I thought it might get me out of jury duty. For example, I didn't say "I'm a radical Libertarian who considers the State invalid…

> but it never came up

I laughed out loud at this.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#74

Post by _r4nc »

Has there ever been a case where a jury has actually “invoked” nullification? I put quotes because a jury wouldn’t directly invoke nullification, they would just present a finding clearly contrary to the evidence. Follow up question, does a jury have to provide any reasoning for their finding? Or just the finding itself?

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#75

Post by RC_ITR »

drewcoo wrote: post #50
throwawaylinux wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Slavery wasn't a crime. And the slaves were property, not allowed trial by jury. Stopping the punishment of crimes is not halting all injustice.

> Slavery wasn't a crime.

Slavery was 100% enabled by the fact that escaping from slavery was a crime.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#76

Post by standardUser »

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.

Cops, prosecutors, DAs, judges, mayors and governors all have varying authority to "control what crimes are punished", in addition to who gets punished and the severity of that punishment. In that context, it doesn't seem so strange for juries to have some authority too. All this latitude among different actors in the justice system just shows how having an incredibly vast number of "crimes" on the books guarantees loopholes and widespread abuse.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#77

Post by tzs »

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.

It can also go the other way, with a jury convicting someone even though they don't believe the person is guilty.

Some say this would not be a problem because unlike in an acquittal the judge can overturn a guilt verdict. That's not a convincing argument because much of what a jury does is decide which of believable but conflicting witness accounts to believe. The judge often has no way to distinguish between the jurors found the prosecution witnesses more believable (and so the judge should let the conviction stand) and the jurors found the defense witnesses more believable but decided to convict anyway because they didn't like something about the defendant such as their race, or bad things they did not relevant to the crime they are being tried for (and so the judge should acquit the defendant).

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#78

Post by bruce511 »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #20
dathinab wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

What would be a better alternative?

To juries? Or to the US legal system?

In an ideal world a good judge is likely better for you than a jury if the law is on your side. Unfortunately good judges are hard to pick, and elections of judges don't seem like a solution.

In terms of the legal system itself, there is way too much room for power bias that needs reform.

In theory the law is blind, applying to everyone equally. In practice it is executed by humans who are anything but blind. Bad actors exist at every level, police, DAs, prosecutors, judges and yes, juries.

Humans, and humanity, should be in the loop, but equally its hard to find sufficient quantities of good humans to participate.

Especially in the current political climate, elections for judges seem particularly fraught. A blood-hungry mob favours those who take a "lock up everyone forever" approach.

Equally, seeing the court as a mechanism for politics, from the highest court to the lowest, while it might be good for politics is bad for justice.

There is a lot to dislike about the current system with its various prejudices - but reform is hard because quality people are hard to find. And every bad apple in the system erodes public trust - and once trust in the system has gone it is hard to regain it.

So what would be a better alternative? Not necessarily a better system, but a system populated with better candidates. In many places that means voting for moderate candidates who are focused on justice, not law. On people with character, not who screams the loudest, or has the most extreme viewpoint. On supporting those police honestly "protecting and serving" while at the same time having a police force actively rooting out corruption and prejudice.

Trust is hard earned, and easily lost. Mostly its in the "lost" bucket right now. It will take a lot to get that back.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#79

Post by nybble41 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #7
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.

Depends on the case. I served on a jury with a very surprised former deputy US Attorney. In general, they don’t like technical people on technical cases. My employer is known to pay for jury duty, so I always get picked.

> My employer is known to pay for jury duty, so I always get picked.

Wouldn't that unduly bias the jury selection? In effect the employer is being allowed to buy extra representation.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#80

Post by [deleted] »

tzs wrote: post #77
mcherm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It can also go the other way, with a jury convicting someone even though they don't believe the person is guilty. Some say this would not be a problem because unlike in an acquittal the judge can overturn a guilt verdict. That's not a convincing argument because much of what a jury does is decide which of believable but conflicting witness accounts to believe. The judge often has no way to distinguish between the jur…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN