A RIGHT OF JURY NULLIFICATION IN SOUTH DAKOTA?

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

[Dianna]

. A white man would murder a black man. An unusual prosecutor might charge the white man with the crime and present his evidence to an all-white (and all-male) jury. The jurors - white supremacists who believe that white men should not be prosecuted for killing black men - would find the white defendant not guilty.

Oh my goodness, we wouldn't want white juries to be like the OJ jury! Honestly, in earlier days did white juries convict white men ONLY because they were told they had no choice? Black juries do convict black people.

Juries are culled from the community. If a group of people in a community don't want to convict drug dealers or child molesters, well they largely have to live with the consequences of that.

But don't ever tell me that I MUST convict a father who has shot a child molester in plain sight of 1000 witnesses. The only evidence I want to hear about is whether or not the guy really was a child molester. And if they refuse to tell me, if they insist that murder and not child molesting is the issue, I'll aquit every single time.

[Psycho Francis]

Sure, as long as the accused has been charged with the law that the jury hasn't invented yet....

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?

[A44MAGNUT]

I have reworded Post 12 for you. If you allow the government to dictate the law, they will dictate the evidence to fit the law. And you don't have to look far to see evidence of this especially in the federal court system.

Without the power to decide what facts, law and evidence are applicable; JURIES cannot be a protection to the accused. If JURORS permit the government to dictate any law whatever, the government can also unfairly dictate what evidence is admissible or inadmissible and thereby prevent the 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!

[longtermmemmory]

". A white man would murder a black man. An unusual prosecutor might charge the white man with the crime and present his evidence to an all-white (and all-male) jury. The jurors - white supremacists who believe that white men should not be prosecuted for killing black men - would find the white defendant not guilty.
Oh my goodness, we wouldn't want white juries to be like the OJ jury! Honestly, in earlier days did white juries convict white men ONLY because they were told they had no choice? Black juries do convict black people. ...."

In Washington DC criminal courts Jury Nulification based on race is a way of life. It is hard to have a conviction of a black criminal defendant.


Jury Nulification is only a threat to judges. It has ALWAYS been a right of the jury as acknowledge in law schools. The courts have prevented jurys being directly told about nulification because they fear a breakdown in "the rule of law." (can you say hypocracy?) Due to double jeopardy, a inocent finding is next to impossible to overturn absent jury bribery. Jury deliberations are sacrosanct. The only contestable comment is a conviction based on a jurror stating the defendant was convicted based on race.

Given the fact that recent state court decisions, FL, NJ, HW, CF make it obvious that the laws do not apply to politicians then the public should be informed of their right of jury nulification. Make it equal for everyone. It is a right that is there in the court, lets not keep it a secret anymore.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Juries should judge law as well. They are trusted to judge the facts of a case, which it very significant. So, why can't the jury also judge the value of the law? Lawmakers are not superior beings with a vast knowledge of law. Most laws are written by morons with little concern of fairness or constitutionality. So, if I am being judged for my actions, should the law that I am being judged by also be judged by the jury? I think so.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"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"

No. A jury must decide what is brought before them: The facts and the law.

[Poohbah]

Lawmakers are not superior beings with a vast knowledge of law. Most laws are written by morons with little concern of fairness or constitutionality.

Since jurors are usually selected from the voter registration rolls, one can fairly argue that they HAVE judged the law, insofar as the guys who actually make the laws are accountable to the voters.

No one has adequately explained how to deal with the flip side of jury nullification--Joe Six-Pack getting convicted not on the basis of any facts pertinent to the charges against him, but because 12 people agreed "there oughta be a law against (fill in the blank)."

[longtermmemmory]

No this is PC pablum. Law schools teach the way to avoid sexism is to write everthing with the female pronoun. Thus by being sexist for female language you are not sexist. In other words by being MORE sexist your are LESS sexist. Doublespeak at its finest. Big Brother Loves YOU!!!

[Godel]

The OJ Simpson case was an example of jury nullification. Apparently the blacks on the jury determined that killing a white woman should not be a crime when committed by a black man. The law and facts did not factor into their decision.

[Poohbah]

"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"

No. A jury must decide what is brought before them: The facts and the law.

Exactly. The jury then decides that Fact Z, irrelevant to Count A, pertains to something that "there oughta be a law against," and then renders a conviction on Count A on that basis.

How do you deal with that?

[Poohbah]

The jury nullification diehards react to the OJ case about as well as a vampire reacts to a crucifix. It makes an extremely uncomfortable position for them.

[steve-b]

Given that jury nullification cannot be prevented without discarding the fundamental elements of the Anglo-American justice system (juror independence, unanimous verdict, and protection from double jeopardy), a formal arrangement under which jurors are instructed on proper causes for nullification (e.g. the law in question or the methods used against the defendant are un-Constitutional on their face) is the best that can be done, really.

[steve-b]

That's as silly as the notion that Republicans should be embarassed about Billzebubba. The OJ case was not nullification -- nobody on the jury showed any sign of believing that it shouldn't be illegal to murder people -- but rather simple favoritism (which can be avoided by a proper voir dire process).

[PatrioticAmerican]

"insofar as the guys who actually make the laws are accountable to the voters"

During the term of a polidiot, they are not accountable. There is absolutely no requirement for an elected official to respond to the people other then they might want to for their next election.

Jury nullification, to me, is the best and most direct way to ensure that the people have a say in the laws written in their name. This is the checks and balances of our system: "You write 'em, we'll check 'em."

[Always Right]

There always will be jury nullification....unless you somehow criminalize it. Really, how can you stop it?

[PatrioticAmerican]

The people are not there to decide if there ought to be a law. They are there to decide if a person has violated a law and if application of the law is just and fair.

[willingtodie]

Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction... if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong.
-- Alexander Hamilton, 1804

It is not only the juror's right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience, though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court.
--John Adams, 1771

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1789

[Poohbah]

The people are not there to decide if there ought to be a law. They are there to decide if a person has violated a law and if application of the law is just and fair.

And, of course, the jury would NEVER do what it isn't supposed to do. </sarcasm>

[Wolfie]

Fully Informed Jury Association