I just got called for Jury duty for the first time (want info on Jury Nullification) - VANITY

[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.)

[The FRugitive]

No, I will be honest...so i suppose I can expect to be dismissed.

[ProudArmyWife]

Iron Eagle = Legal Eagle? :)

[HamiltonJay]

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.

[AppyPappy]

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.

[harpseal]

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.

[Experiment 6-2-6]

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..

[Protagoras]

A hung jury is not nullification

I guess you have a different definition than I do. You state your opinion as fact. It's not, you perceive it to be.

[Experiment 6-2-6]

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.

[ProudArmyWife]

Hi ya!

[JCEccles]

I tend to agree with you.

[HairOfTheDog]

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.

[Protagoras]

Hi right back at ya!

[Protagoras]

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.

[technochick99]

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.

[Howlin]

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.

[jimt]

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.

[Semper Paratus]

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.

[Howlin]

While I certainly wouldn't lie if asked directly

But a lie of omission suits you just fine?

[HairOfTheDog]

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.

[NYFriend]

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?