Jury Nullification & The Constitution

GunFacts.info ^ | 2007 | Guy Smith

[Kenny Bunk]

I would never in a million years convict this person for their actions.

Correction. Never in a million years would you be seated as a juror.

[qwertypie]

Screw the law. I’m going to vote my politics. They do it. So will I. Dump motor oil in a wilderness area stream. You’ll get a hung jury if I’m on it.

We’re at war.

[Man50D]

It’s Ironic you post this subject. I was given a citizens Rule Book Jury Handbook on Saturday while at a Dump Chris Dodd rally in Hartford, CT.

[Ron H.]

...“KMA, your honor.”...

A most correct attitude IMHO. As a juror it is my duty to use my own best judgement else why even bother having a jury process in the first place.

[cripplecreek]

That’s good. They should be handed out at all public rallies, even liberal anti war rallies.

[publiusF27]

Juries: Just say no

Likewise, in an 1804 libel case, Alexander Hamilton argued that "the jury have an undoubted right to give a general verdict, which decides both law and fact."

"This distribution of power, by which the court and jury mutually assist, and mutually check each other," Hamilton continued, "seems to be the safest, and consequently the wisest arrangement, in respect to the trial of crimes. ... To judge accurately of motives and intentions, does not require a master's skill in the science of law. It depends more on a knowledge of the passions, and of the springs of human action, and may be the lot of ordinary experience and sagacity."

In other words, the people are deemed sensible enough to decide when one of their fellows is getting the shaft from an unjust law.

[PapaBear3625]

My last jury duty experience included the judge warning us ahead of time about nullification and letter of the law, etc., and no way did we have the right to do that - I just thought to myself, “KMA, your honor.” The case was plea bargained, of course.

You just have to be careful, in deliberations, to never mention nullification (otherwise the judge will just have you tossed from the jury, an alternate juror installed, and you brought up for contempt). Just stick with, "I'm not convinced he's guilty".

[TChris]

You just have to be careful, in deliberations, to never mention nullification (otherwise the judge will just have you tossed from the jury, an alternate juror installed, and you brought up for contempt). Just stick with, "I'm not convinced he's guilty".

Yeah, dishonesty and blatant violation of your sacred oath is always gonna be a winner.

[MamaTexan]

Jury nullification is the right of the People, despite what any black-robed bandit says.

U.S. v. DOUGHERTY, 473 F.2d. 1113, 1139 (1972):
"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge...."

_________________________________________________________

LORD DENMAN, (in C.J. O'Connell v. R. ,1884):
"Every jury in the land is tampered with and falsely instructed by the judge when it is told it must take (or accept) as the law that which has been given to them, or that they must bring in a certain verdict, or that they can decide only the facts of the case."

[Who is John Galt?]

In our legal system, juries have a power known as “nullification”.

If you (or anyone else) believes that juries possess that power, just don't mention it when you are being interviewed by the judge for potential jury service - unless you do NOT want to serve on the jury. Judges do not like the idea of juries actually 'judging the law'...

[Still Thinking]

Not if SCOTUS says they can’t!

You're wrong for two reasons. First, jurors can nullify and return a not-guilty verdict if they want to and there's nothing the court can do to stop them. They don't have to justify their votes or explain their verdict. Second, SCOTUS' take on this seems to be "Yes, jurors have the right to nullify, but it's a citizen's job to know his rights. If he doesn't know them, it's not the court's duty to educate him." Now that rationale, it seems to me, could justify not explicitly telling them they can nullify, but it certainly wouldn't cover lying to them and telling they're NOT allowed to do so.

[Still Thinking]

Who the heck is John Couey?

[Still Thinking]

If they made the pamphlets visible, they no doubt wanted to be let go.

I'm sure of it. I've heard exactly that tactic described as a way to get out of jury duty, so I'm sure they did too.

[Still Thinking]

If enough jurors did this over a long enough period of time, the judges would have to either seat jurors willing to engage in jury nullification, or cease holding trials. While this is theoretically possible, it is very unlikely unless the entire citizenry becomes aware of the possibility and radicalized enough to do it.

Are you kidding me? As far as I can see, most of the public seems to think that if they're on a jury, it's their role in the process to vote guilty, to convict anyone the government sees fit to try. IOW, they're even more sheeplified than the court is asking them to be by forswearing nullification.

[cripplecreek]

The Animal who raped Jessica Lunsford and buried her alive.

[betty boop]

Never is a citizen more sovereign than when he sits on a jury. He is utterly free to exercise his conscience in his verdict decision, and no judge or jury in the land can overturn or appeal his verdict to a higher authority. In the matter of jury verdicts, there is no higher authority....

The judge can instruct him as to the pertinent law in the case. But court cases aren't based just on the applicable laws, but also on the facts of the case. The jury determines the facts; and then decides whether or not to impose a penalty. If a juror decides the application of the law would be "unfair" for some reason — even if the evidence points to the defendant's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" — the juror can refuse to return a guilty verdict. In effect, a jury nullification says, "for reasons that satisfy me, the juror, I will not apply the law to this particular defendant."

Federal and state authorities have the power to indict (upon the direction of a grand jury), but they do not have the power to convict. Only a "jury of one's peers" can convict. In many if not most cases, it requires 100% unanimity among jurors to convict. The state cannot punish unless the jury decides the defendant is guilty.

The OJ case is a prime example of jury nullification. Most people detest what the jury did in that case. But they were well within their sovereign rights to find as they did. It's been suggested they nullified to make a clear statement about the misconduct of police and prosecutors in the case. Evidently they thought that was worse than what OJ was "alleged" to have done. Whatever. In any case, OJ walked.

Jury nullification could be an excellent tool in RKBA cases. It usually only takes one juror to prevent a finding of guilt.

However, a jury nullification only applies to the specific defendant in the specific case. It does not and cannot establish a legal precedent for other like cases.

But it makes it a lot harder for DAs and courts to successfully railroad people for exercising their constitutional rights.

Bear that in mind if you're ever called to jury duty! It's one of the few opportunities in life nowadays when the individual citizen truly can be what the Constitution says he is: Sovereign.

Jury nullification gives judges the willies. Therefore, at voir dire — the interview that determines whether a potential juror will serve or be dismissed — it's best not to say anything about your knowledge of the law in general, and jury nullification in particular. (Unless you want to be dismissed speedily from service.)

[MosesKnows]

All it takes is a bit of knowledge and a seat on a jury

I am curious. Who benefits more from an informed juror, the prosecution or the defense?

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

IANAL but I beg to differ. Jury nullification could be modified or invalidated by the SCOTUS, at any time (provided a suitable opportunity comes before them). The law is what they say it is.

Was the First Amendment not clear? Yet they upheld McCain-Feingold. The Second? Yet they nibbled away at that. Eminent domain was clearly restricted by the Constitution, to certain purposes, yet now...

They discover rights not in there, they interpret a way around those that are in there.

[DesertRhino]

Not completely. Say someone is charged of a gun crime. Not a crime of violence. Take for example, a Ranger caught them hiking in a national park with a gun. You are on the jury. Because you know it to be an unjust infringment on the 2nd amendment, you refuse to vote guilty no matter what the law says in black and white, or what evidence is presnted.

The guy goes free, cannot be re-tried, and the SCOTUS has no say in it. Soon, prosecutors learn what juries will accept and what they won’t. Jury nullification is already used with good effect by the black community.

Sometimes justified, sometimes not. But it is certainly effective. We are certain to have to retake our country soon, this is a good weapon to use to stop him. Their only answer is to descend into open lawlessness with all that holds for them too.

[cripplecreek]

I am curious. Who benefits more from an informed juror, the prosecution or the defense?

Neither, which is why both sides are happy to keep jurors in the dark. Prosecution nor defense wants to hand control over to the whims of a jury. The true beneficiary is the public. We may not always like the outcome but in the end, the will of the people is done.