Skip to comments.
I just got called for Jury duty for the first time (want info on Jury Nullification) - VANITY
Posted on 03/12/2003 7:27:40 AM PST by The FRugitive
I just got called for jury duty for the first time.
I'm curious about jury nullification in case I get picked and get a consensual "criminal" case (tax evasion, drug posession, gun law violation, etc.). What would I need to know?
This could be my chance to stick it to the man. ;)
(Of course if I were to get a case of force or fraud I would follow the standing law.)
TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: jurormisconduct; jurytampering
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 441-452 next last
To: Experiment 6-2-6
No, I will be honest...so i suppose I can expect to be dismissed.
To: Iron Eagle
Iron Eagle = Legal Eagle? :)
To: Protagoras
No Nullification is not a mistrial... the defendant can be retried. The defendant is only let free and nullified of conviction if found not guilty by the jury despite the letter of the law. A hung jury is not nullification. Your opinion is highly blurred into what you perceive as fact.
To: archy
I hope that's a comforting thought for you as the bailiff hauls you out to the stake where the piled kindling awaits where you'll be burned alive, as the prosecutor watches on and grins.BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I'll be sure to look for that to happen.
104
posted on
03/12/2003 8:53:50 AM PST
by
AppyPappy
(Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.)
To: AppyPappy
I would submit you have a duty to vote innocent in such a case becuase of your knowledge that the Second Ammendment means an innocent verdict. according to the letter of the law John Peter Zenger was certainly guilty but he was aquitted by a jury becuase the law was unjust. That is the history and the reason for a jury trial. We obviously disagree as to what the function of a jury should be.
105
posted on
03/12/2003 8:55:48 AM PST
by
harpseal
(Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
To: The FRugitive; Iron Eagle
Iron Eagle really has given the best advice on this thread. In a way, I would concur with his suggestion that you would be playing with matches if, in a jury pool, you found yourself selected to be a juror over one of them crimes you don't like.
If, upon moral grounds, you don't like the law, you can vote not guilty. I can't dictate moral beliefs, and neither can the judge. However, if asked what your thoughts are regarding the charge, you willingness to answer truthfully will most likely get you kicked off. Not always, as I got to sit on a three strike which was 6-6 going in after a half day's spent on prosecution by the ADA..
To: HamiltonJay
A hung jury is not nullificationI guess you have a different definition than I do. You state your opinion as fact. It's not, you perceive it to be.
To: The FRugitive; Iron Eagle
This part got cut off:
Again, you are supposed to decide the truthfulness of the testimony, and what the facts are. If you believe someone is not being truthful, it would be much easier to persuade fellow jurors not to convict, rather than try to nullify the law.
To: Protagoras
Hi ya!
To: Protagoras
I tend to agree with you.
To: The FRugitive; Ramius
I think the fact that you are trying to justify 'jury nullification' before you even have a case or a law before you shows that you are a particularly unsuitable juror who is looking to be a rebel before he even has a clue.
Jury nullifications are not premeditated. They happen when honest people listen to a whole case, and cannot in good conscience come to a conviction even if the facts dictate they 'should'.
Juries are not a place for people to go to further their own agenda against the system.
To: ProudArmyWife
Hi right back at ya!
To: HairOfTheDog
Juries are not a place for people to go to further their own agenda against the system.Your opinion is heard, and rejected by me.
To: AppyPappy
AP, I believe that the last SC ruling was that we had the right, but we did not need to be informed of it. I could be wrong, but I remember comparing it to how some people are trying to make it so that Miranda doesn't need to be read.
114
posted on
03/12/2003 9:16:34 AM PST
by
technochick99
(Self defense is a basic human right. http://www.2ASisters.org)
To: The FRugitive
Are you a conservative? If you claim to be so, I was under the impression that we, as conservatives, were opposed to activist judges and lawyers.
Why would an 'activist' juror be any different?
You job would be to listen to the evidence and decide how it relates to the laws you'll be given; if you intend to vote your "feelings" stay home.
115
posted on
03/12/2003 9:18:57 AM PST
by
Howlin
(Only UNamericans put the UN before America!)
To: The FRugitive
Although maybye my views might keep me off an actul jury during questioning. If you try to practice jury nullification, you'd best keep your mouth shut about it. People have been arrested and jailed for it. Judges don't like it at all when you challenge their view that they control everything.
If you are honest during the questioning phase, you'll piss 'em off to the max. Once during jury selection the prosecutor asked if we'd vote to convict based on proof that the accused had said something. I raised my hand and told them it'd depend on the context it was said in, having said stupid or regrettable things more than once in my life.
If the judge coulda shot me on the spot he would have.
116
posted on
03/12/2003 9:20:31 AM PST
by
jimt
To: SauronOfMordor
etc, etc. Catch the distinction?No, a jury does not ever have to justify their verdict. Maybe in the OJ case they believed that no black man can get justice in this country, maybe they were just stupid, but when they gave their verdict they don't declare 'jury nullification'.
The Jurys power resides in the absolute abitlity to refuse to convict, why they do it is irrelevant. If a juror was asked before selection if they believed the law in question was just and they said yes then acted because they believed it was unjust then they served in false pretenses, but there is no recourse.
To: The FRugitive
While I certainly wouldn't lie if asked directlyBut a lie of omission suits you just fine?
118
posted on
03/12/2003 9:21:03 AM PST
by
Howlin
(Only UNamericans put the UN before America!)
To: Protagoras
OK then you tell me, exactly how you can ~without any specific case even in mind~ justify going into a jury with the specific intent to disrupt, and not follow, the law?
You are not King, and this is a society of laws. If you don't like the law, try to change it. But until changed, we are bound by those laws, not 100 million opinions about what the law should be.
To: archy
I always thought that polling the jury was more of a formality, just to satisfy everyone that the forman's report was correct. So you served on a federal grand jury? That must have been all sorts of fun. How long did they keep you?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 441-452 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson