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.)

[Howlin]

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

I sure wouldn't want him/her/it on any jury that was judging me.

[Protagoras]

The founders disagreed with you.

[disgustedvet]

Appy Pappy, I must strongly disagree with you.

"The jury has the 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 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


Although, I must say that I think it would be wrong for any person to approach jury duty with any preconceived notions as to how they may cast their vote.

TheFrugitive, I might recommend reading a copy of The Citizens Rule Book, from which all the above quotes were taken.

[paulklenk]

oddly enough, I was not chosen as a juror

Whew. Proof that the system works.

[JudgemAll]

Although maybye my views might keep me off an actul jury during questioning.

Just play dumbarse sheep and say you have no particular views or inclinations in life and if ever that you can disregard your views considering the evidence.

[Protagoras]

America's second President, John Adams, said in 1771: "It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

And John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, said: "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794.

[savedbygrace]

No, Hank, you are not describing "natural rights," and I suspect you know that. Nobody has a "natural right" to someone else's life (self-defense excepted) or property.

Jury Nullification refers to jurors judging the law or the particulars of the prosecution of the law to be defective in some way in the case they are trying.

In the Simpson case, the jurors apparently decided that the prosecution of the case was improper, specifically the handling of the evidence.

But you knew that.

[luckodeirish]

"just tell them you are a strong believer in jury nullification"

But make sure that, if asked, you are able to define "jury nullification". I went to jury duty and some woman used that line, the judge asked her to define it, and she went blank. Had no idea what it was. I was doubled over in laughter. Jury duty can be funny.

[savedbygrace]

(Of course if I were to get a case of force or fraud I would follow the standing law.)

See my post #127. (I am not a lawyer. I detest the smell of blood. LOL.)

[technochick99]

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.

Why would you reject that opinion? Would I ever stand by the idea of jury nullification? Yes, if it was a truly serious violation of justice and the Constitution. However, I can say right off that there are only one or two issues that I might take exception to.

I wouldn't plan on going in just to 'muck up the works' though. Is that what you support?

[waterstraat]

"The jury has the 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

I think these guys knew more about this subject, and more about what is constitutional or is not, than anybody else today.

Serving on a jury is NOT!! something to be avoided!!

It is one of the things we fought the revolution for. A jury has more power than any legislature, any judge, any police power, any governor, and even more power than the Supreme Court. It was designed that way by our founding fathers. I advise everyone to cherish the Bill of Rights. Read what the founding fathers said about juries, and what juries should do(dont worry about what the judge or what ruth ginsbergh thinks about it)

[southland]

I totaLLY AGREE serve IF YOU CAN!! re POST 22 There are too many incompetent people in the jury pools. Serve and make a mark for justice. If the state does not prove guilt vote not guilty.!!

[Protagoras]

I wouldn't plan on going in just to 'muck up the works' though.

That reference is designed to prejudice the opinion of the reader. A very old trick.

Is that what you support?

I support backing up your concience on important matters.

I would happily use my jury vote to nullify any conviction of a person tried for violating Jim Crow laws, for example.

[Protagoras]

A jury has more power than any legislature, any judge, any police power, any governor, and even more power than the Supreme Court. It was designed that way by our founding fathers

And that is a very frightening prospect for authoritarians.

[doberville]

I've been called FIVE times in ten years. It's not so much that I would mind serving; it's just that I'm really annoyed at being called over and over and over. (No, I've never been selected.)

This is all supposed to be done by computer. But why does it like ME so much better than everybody else?

[Roscoe]

But a lie of omission suits you just fine?

And Libertarians claim to be opposed to fraud.

[Rytwyng]

The classic example of righteous Jury Nullification is the Fugitive Slave Law. It used to be a federal crime to help slaves escape from the South. But many people who were caught doing this, were acquitted -- because the antislavery sentiment in the North was so strong that often the juries would simply say, "Yes, he did it, but slavery is wrong, so the law is wrong, therefore NOT GUILTY."

I know a guy who was in a jury pool and the question was asked, "Would you vote not guilty if you disagreed with the law?" He said yes. The defense attorney grilled him intensely, point by point, about his jury nullification beliefs, over 2 days, and (to his amazement) he ended up explaining the whole concept in detail, to the entire court. The judge was not very pleased with this, but what could he do? Since he cited the Fugitive Slave Law, the judge couldn't oppose Jury Nullification without looking pro-slavery.

He was dismissed, and (as he heard later) so was the whole jury pool. They brought in a busload of jurors from another court miles away, in order to get an untainted panel -- so greatly do they fear Jury Nullification.

He had no intention of creating such disruption. All he did was answer their questions truthfully, under oath. The defense attorney (it was a drug case) apparently had his own agenda in grilling him so as to educate the whole pool.

[HamiltonJay]

Your opinion is not fact, nullification is not a hung jury, never has been never will be. A hung jury does not excuse the accused from punishment, merely creates a mistrial and then the need for a new one. The accused is still left facing punishment for their enfraction.

Nullification ONLY occurs when the the accused is found NOT GUILTY by the jury, in spite of the evidence. This verdict frees the accused from punishment as they may never again be tried for the same offense. Nullification is the act in which a jury refuses to allow the punishment of an accused even if the accused clearly violated the law. Your incorrect proposition that a hung jury is Jury Nullification is complete false.

One individual with a cause cannot nullify punishment for an accused person. Our judicial system is intentially set up specifically to prevent single individuals with causes the ability to run roughshod over the rule of law. Nullification is the judicial power check against punishment, whether it be unjust laws, or circumstances of an individual act. However this power check is not in the hands of one juror and there is a reason for that.

Nullification only occurs when a jury collectively declares a defendant not guilty in spite of the letter of the law. A Hung Jury is not nullification, the accused may still be retried and punished. They are only free from punishment or persecution if they are declared not Guilty. Some individual jurist alone with a cause can cause a hung jury or mistrial but cannot create "Jury Nullification". Its not "JUROR" nullification its "JURY" nullification.

I don't care what your opinion says, its flat out not in concert with the FACTS.

[HairOfTheDog]

Whatever....

I don't have your library of founding father quotes, but I highly doubt they thought up this system of ours hoping that future jurors would judge cases based on their political view of 'what the law should be' rather than enforcing the law that was legally written and in good standing.

[The FRugitive]

I'm not going to lie period. I'll answer every question truthfully and completely.