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

91–100 of 449 posts

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#91

Post by BurningFrog »

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.

That's pretty much the original idea:

The jury is an old form of democracy. The king/government can make what laws they like, but it needs to have enough popular support that a jury will freely choose to convict according to it.

Of course, like all forms of democracy, the outcomes don't always agree with your or my sense of justice.

> it has to be balanced against crimes that are in principle clearly wrong

In this system, whoever gets to decide what is "clearly wrong" has the real power.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#92

Post by brewdad »

SantalBlush wrote: post #35
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.

Sure but that's only the indictment phase. Basically, is there any case here at all. The rest will come out in the trial phase.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#93

Post by WalterBright »

eru wrote: post #83
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.

> 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. Only in one direction, I think. Jury nullification still can't render a guilty verdict, when the law says the defendant ain't guilty. (At least in principle.)

It's in only one direction, because a jury cannot form itself and pick a victim to falsely convict.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#94

Post by AnimalMuppet »

BurningFrog wrote: post #91
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.

That's pretty much the original idea: The jury is an old form of democracy. The king/government can make what laws they like, but it needs to have enough popular support that a jury will freely choose to convict according to it. Of course, like all forms of democracy, the outcomes don't always agree with your or my sense of justice. > it has to be balanced against crimes that are in principle clearly wrong In this sy…

> In this system, whoever gets to decide what is "clearly wrong" has the real power.

Who gets to decide? The jury. That's the point. They have the real power.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#95

Post by dd36 »

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?

Anonymized justice. The facts. The arguments and a decision without any of the parties knowing race or anything else.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#96

Post by padheyam »

bruce511 wrote: post #78
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 huma…

India had its face-palm moment when the jury acquitted a jealous husband of murder of his wife's lover and abolished jury trials soon after. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._M._Nanavati_v._State_of_Mah...)

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#97

Post by ALittleLight »

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 was on a jury when I was young, maybe eighteen, and haven't been on one again. I was disappointed not to get a whodunnit or some complex case.

Instead ,I was on a DUI that resulted in a crash with some extra circumstances. The defense was entirely presented at closing and amounted to the claim that the defendant stopped his car right before the crash, let a hitchhiker take the wheel, the hitchhiker caused the crash, moved the defendant into the driver's seat and belted him in there so that the fire department arrived and photographed the defendant there, and then ran off.

Even if the crazy hitchhiker story were true then the defendant was still admitting to DUI, and, in my mind, being responsible for the crash. It was basically a huge waste of time since all jurors instantly voted to convict.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#98

Post by duped »

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…

Not really since a court can overturn a verdict without a second trial by jury. A jury nullification can't be overturned by a court.

You'd have to abolish double jeopardy if you wanted equivalence.

Re: Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case

#100

Post by pkaye »

themitigating wrote: post #15
yuliyp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why attorneys get to ask questions of potential jurors and ask for them to be excused.

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

I've served as a juror before and most people are just trying to find excuses get kicked out.
Post reply on HN