Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue

blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 25 posts

Re: A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue

#4

Post by aix1 »

underseacables wrote: post #3

I’ve heard so many conflicting conclusions on jury nullification, with mini saying it’s illegal. Is that true? Is it illegal for a juror to stand up and say we should vote not guilty because the law is wrong, or the cause is just?

> Is it illegal for a juror...

I imagine this can vary significantly by jurisdiction, no? (Your question doesn't mention one.)

Re: A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue

#5

Post by underseacables »

aix1 wrote: post #4
underseacables wrote: post #3

I’ve heard so many conflicting conclusions on jury nullification, with mini saying it’s illegal. Is that true? Is it illegal for a juror to stand up and say we should vote not guilty because the law is wrong, or the cause is just?

> Is it illegal for a juror... I imagine this can vary significantly by jurisdiction, no? (Your question doesn't mention one.)

For simplicity sake, let’s use federal court.

Re: A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue

#6

Post by nickcox »

underseacables wrote: post #5
aix1 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it illegal for a juror... I imagine this can vary significantly by jurisdiction, no? (Your question doesn't mention one.)

For simplicity sake, let’s use federal court.

I imagine it would still depend on the jurisdiction?

Re: A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue

#7

Post by joefife »

underseacables wrote: post #5
aix1 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it illegal for a juror... I imagine this can vary significantly by jurisdiction, no? (Your question doesn't mention one.)

For simplicity sake, let’s use federal court.

Why?

The article posted is about the law in England and Wales.

Re: A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue

#8

Post by amanaplanacanal »

underseacables wrote: post #3

I’ve heard so many conflicting conclusions on jury nullification, with mini saying it’s illegal. Is that true? Is it illegal for a juror to stand up and say we should vote not guilty because the law is wrong, or the cause is just?

My understanding of the US is that the jury pretty much has final say. If the jury returns “not guilty”, that’s the end of it.

Re: A Juror’s Guide to Going Rogue

#9

Post by tzs »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #8
underseacables wrote: post #3

I’ve heard so many conflicting conclusions on jury nullification, with mini saying it’s illegal. Is that true? Is it illegal for a juror to stand up and say we should vote not guilty because the law is wrong, or the cause is just?

My understanding of the US is that the jury pretty much has final say. If the jury returns “not guilty”, that’s the end of it.

Generally correct in criminal cases, due to the law against double jeopardy.

There is an exception, though. Double jeopardy does not apply if you weren't actually in jeopardy at the first trial. If, for instance, you bribed the jury or used threats against a juror or their family to get them to vote not guilty, then that trial may not count as having placed you in jeopardy. The State could try you again for the same crime (and also try you for crimes associated with your tampering with the jury at the first trial).

Note that although a jury does not have the final say in the other direction because the judge can choose to overrule a jury's "guilty" verdict or the defendant can appeal to a higher court, in practice they effectively do in many cases because jurors do not have to explain why they reached their verdict.

Say Bob is charged with theft. Bob offers witnesses who saw Bob at a place nowhere near the crime scene at around the same time as the crime. The prosecution offers witnesses that saw Bob at the crime scene and attacks the credibility of Bob's witnesses. Bob offers evidence that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable. It is going to come down to which individual witnesses are believable and which are not, which is a rather subjecting thing for the jurors (and for the judge and any judges in future appeals).

If the jury feels that Bob is not guilty of this particular crime but feels that Bob has probably committed other crimes and will continue to do so and decides to return a guilty verdict, the judge doesn't have a way to distinguish that from a guilty verdict because the jury evaluated the reliability of all the witnesses and concluded that the prosecution ones were telling the truth.

Post reply on HN