Posted on 02/18/2006 1:46:55 PM PST by freepatriot32
This sounds like Soviet Russia.
this entire thing is academic anyway since we both seem to admit that jury nullification can't be prevented.
####
Nullification could be prevented by allowing judicial review of jury verdicts. It could also be specifically banned by law. Of course, that would fly in the face of the expressed intent of the Founding Fathers.
Jurors can't be charged with this because there is no way to prove it. And the jurors themselves wouldn't be prosecuted, by the way; it's been common-law doctrine for centuries that jurors are not to be prosecuted for anything they do in the rightful capacity as jurors. If a jury were found to have engaged in nullification, the result would be the overturning of their verdict as null. And even that would carry its own slew of double jeopardy issues.
Jurors are called upon to make decisions. Trying to prove that they made a given decision by using a certain rationale is tantamount to attempting to prove a thoughtcrime. This isn't your average state-of-mind issue, either: the result that a jury reached is one that they can legitimately reach. Juries are not held to their results. This isn't like negligence or premeditation. You actually have an objectively viewable red flag in criminal or tort cases that use those concepts.
A prohibition on jury nullification would be impossible to enforce and so can't really be made illegal. It is therefore recognized as a power, albeit one to be exercised under the radar. But it has no legal sanction whatsoever, and therefore cannot be recognized as a right.
Heh. Thanks. I could do this all day.
Ummmm, I thought the whole point of jury nullification was at that point when the Foreman stood up and said, "Your Honor, we of the jury find that this law is unconstitutional and is hereby declared null and void."
Thereby freeing society from the burden of an unfair law, not merely releasing one victim of that law, and leaving the rest of us exposed the the whims of our local 'betters"...
Certainly the perception of jury nullification went downhill after the establishment of the Constitution, and especially after the Civil War. Opposition of laws imposed by an overseas monarch was seen rather more favorably than opposition of laws passed locally. At the time the Constitution was ratified, however, the ability of juries to act as a check on government was viewed as a good thing.
To be sure, jury nullification has some severe problems:
And the standard for rendering a JNOV is high enough that it pretty much never happens, and when it does, it happens in civil suits. Basically, if the jury came to a decision, based on the evidence, that a reasonable person could come to in the capacity of a trier of fact, their verdict will not be disturbed. When you factor in the reasonable doubt standard that the prosecution already has to overcome, it becomes clear that a reasonable jury could find someone not guilty in pretty much any criminal case.
Even in civil suits, where the standard of proof is a mere preponderance, JNOV is used very sparingly, and is usually accompanied by a new trial, not a simple reversal. The odds of a JNOV being granted in that second trial, if a second jury comes to the same conclusion, is so small as to be negligible.
If the foreman did that, the verdict would be tossed out. This is why jury nullification happens under the radar. That's the only way it can happen. And when it happens like that, it can't be proven.
That's a laugh.
No one's life liberty or property are safe as long as court is in session.
If a jury finds a law unjust and wishes to acquit anyone charged under it, there is really no way to stop them as long as they don't tell anyone what they're doing. But a judge declaring a law void is a pretty serious matter already, and explicitly throwing this power into the nigh-uncheckable province of the jury is just asking for trouble.
And putting additional checks on juries to counter the above problem is asking for even more trouble.
A prohibition on jury nullification would be impossible to enforce and so can't really be made illegal.
####
As stated above, nullification could be stopped by allowing judicial review. The courts have ruled jury nullification is legal. The congress has not tried to stop it by law or Constitutional amendment.
By the way, is a lawyer somehow better able to get elected to public office than anyone of another profession? If so, you may want to blame The People for electing them.
See #123.
OMG that is ridiculous. It looks like these municipalities are trying to make money the easiest way possible.
Durr, make that 124.
I'm on a mistake-making rampage, aren't I? Make that 129.
In criminal cases in the U.S., only the defendant (and not the prosecution) may move for a J.N.O.V.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.