A RIGHT OF JURY NULLIFICATION IN SOUTH DAKOTA?

findlaw.com ^ | Wednesday, Oct. 09, 2002 | By SHERRY F. COLB

[Anti-Bubba182]

DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[USA21]

bump

[The Other Harry]

I absolutely disagree.

Jury nullification is an essential, fundamental right.

[Mike Darancette]

The author uses the word 'she' is this amendment only for women?

[Neanderthal]

"She can, if she chooses, admit that she is guilty as charged but ask the jury to acquit her anyway, because the law that she violated is wrong or unduly harsh."

She? What the heck is this? Is this some sort of ridiculous PC? I thought most criminals were He's, by far.

[thescourged1]

Hmmmmm....methinks husband killings must be on the rise in SD.

[Arkinsaw]

Juries are there to provide justice. If it was just a matter of law and facts a judge or multiple judges are perfectly capable of handling law and facts. Citizen juries of your peers are there to provide justice.
They are better able to provide justice in a specific case than the legislature. Its the jury that prevents the law from being just cold and hard words.

[Uncle Fud]

Rather than turning on the strength of a prosecutor's case, the outcome of a drug trial would begin to turn primarily on the ideological commitments of the particular jurors. The same would hold true for gun control laws and laws against the harassment of people entering abortion clinics.

And the problem with that is......???????

[A44MAGNUT]

“The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” --John Jay, 1st Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1789

“The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.” --Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796, Signer of the unanimous Declaration

“The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.” --Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1902

“The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” --Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1941

If a judge will not tell this to a jury before they deliberate, I have no problem with a law that requires the judge to do so.

[agitator]

Prostitutors errr prosecutors base their careers on brownie points earned by locking people up for whatever reason. Anything that threatens their ability to to this upsets their career track. Bogus laws that are routinely applied to convict, fine, and incarcerate people are good for the lawyering business - anything that threatens this must be avoided. This is simply more whining and condescension from the elites that think that they know better about what's good for the people than the people do.

[A44MAGNUT]

Without the power to decide what facts, law and evidence are applicable, JURIES cannot be a protection to the accused. If people acting in the name of government are permitted by JURORS to dictate any law whatever, they can also unfairly dictate what evidence is admissible or inadmissible and thereby prevent to WHOLE TRUTH from being considered. Thus if government can manipulate and control both the law and the evidence, the issue of fact becomes virtually irrelevant. In reality, true JUSTICE would be denied leaving us with a trial by government and not a trial by JURY!

Think about it!

[Dat]

So if someone is innocent of a crime they are accused of should the jury be able to convict them anyway because they think there should be a law against whatever it is they did?

[Jabba the Nutt]

Everyone in a courtroom has been informed of their rights and has professional legal counsel.....except the jury. The defendent had his Miranda warning, search warrant, right to stay silent and right to call an attorney. The prosecutor is a lawyer and the judge is a lawyer.

The jury has the right the be fully informed of their legal rights, including the right to judge the law, as well as the facts. Basta, end of story. You have to do somersaults to argue against this.

[Rate_Determining_Step]

That is nuts. Juries can short-curcuit a bad law with this. There's nothing wrong with that. It has served to check bad law in the past and has a place as it always did in law and justice. You build your conclusion partly on the following:

they can also unfairly dictate what evidence is admissible or inadmissible and thereby prevent to WHOLE TRUTH from being considered.

Hey, I got one for ya... A jury can disregard sworn, first-hand testamony and even direct physical evidence. Juries are not now, nor have they ever been perfect. They can't deliver where an inadequate prosecution or defense hasn't. Ever hear of OJ?

Jury Nullification is one component of the jury process.

RDS
not a Libertarian, but a Republican who'd probably never vote for a Libertarian.

[meadsjn]

Independent of its practical consequences, moreover, the invitation for jurors to be a law unto themselves runs contrary to the long-held ideal in this country of a government of laws, not of men. A law that people are invited to disregard is no law at all.

On the contrary, our justice system is hopelessly messed up, not by the citizens, but by the lawyer folks themselves. The legislative and judicial offices at all levels is predominated by this particular group of people, and they have twisted "the law" beyond perversion to enrich themselves, and deny the citizens of life, liberty, and property. The prison industry is a money-making enterprize which benefits only the legal profession.

There's an old joke about a lawyer moving to a one-horse town out west. As the only lawyer in town, he could not make ends meet and had to clean the stable to buy food. Finally, another lawyer moved to town, and they both got filthy rich.

[A44MAGNUT]

Juries can short-curcuit a bad law with this. There's nothing wrong with that. It has served to check bad law in the past and has a place as it always did in law and justice.

I agree with you.

they can also unfairly dictate what evidence is admissible or inadmissible and thereby prevent to WHOLE TRUTH from being considered.

I think you missed the entire meaning of this sentence by forgetting the clause in front of this.

[Rate_Determining_Step]

I believe I did. I don't think that Jury Nullification ever meant to, nor ever has, messed with process, but rather the law.

I also said they could dismiss testamony and evidence already - which is the same as making a piece of evidence inadmissable.

In fact, to make a peice of evidence inadmissable, it would have the exact process as hearing it and discarding it. Which is what they can (and do) do now.

Perhaps I'm still missing something, but I think this particular issue is a non-starter.

[Arkinsaw]

So if someone is innocent of a crime they are accused of should the jury be able to convict them anyway because they think there should be a law against whatever it is they did?

The jury is there to apply the law and at the same time prevent a miscarriage of justice under color of law. Your situation would not apply.

[Dat]

Depending on what you define "miscarriage of justice" as.