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.)

[HairOfTheDog]

I've been called FIVE times in ten years. ...This is all supposed to be done by computer. But why does it like ME so much better than everybody else?

I dunno, but go buy a Lotto ticket!

[Sparta]

Bookmarked for the excellent information.

[The FRugitive]

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

Jury nullification would never be bad for the defendant. If I were charged with an unjust law I'd love to have such a person on my jury.

[LibertarianInExile]

This thread has managed to wonderfully twist jury nullification to seem AGAINST the notion of liberty and the rule of law, which is completely opposite the point of jury nullification. You've been sucked in, Howlin.

The point of having a jury is that your peers decide both guilt or innocence of the person being charged AND the just nature of the law being applied. The Zenger case cited above is one of the fundaments of American liberty, the freedom of the press.

That 'conservatives' would deride the notion of jury nullification, which is the last defense the public has against an unjust law, even one applied evenly, (i.e., for the crime of impersonating a mailman, ala Seinfeld, one could be charged with a felony--look it up) is further proof of the shameful state of 'justice' existing in this country, and of the even sadder state of so-called 'conservative' thought. You've forgotten what it is you're supposed to be conserving, people. It's not the rule of law. Royalists and dictators defend the rule of law. It's the rule of JUST law.

Even in Texas, "He needed killin'" is still a worthy defense, simply because some things that are by law crimes are not crimes in the eyes of humanity, and humans DO apply the law because words haven't been written in the statute books to apply to every situation. And I doubt sincerely that any defense lawyer worth a frog's fat ass would show derision towards the notion of jury nullification, prior comments by others claiming superior legal knowledge notwithstanding.

But to go further, to speak as a lawyer as if a law degree makes one's opinion worth more than any other citizen's is to claim elite status, that lawyers and only lawyers are able, both as judge and prosecutor, to determine what the law means and says. It certainly explains why most courts fight tooth and nail against allowing any idea of jury nullification to smack into any jury's cerebellum, let alone rest of the unwashed masses.

God forbid lawyers should have to justify their works every day to 12 honest, God-fearing, Constitution-loving, Americans.

[Protagoras]

Your opinion is not fact, nullification is not a hung jury, never has been never will be.

Your opinion.

A hung jury does not excuse the accused from punishment, merely creates a mistrial and then the need for a new one.

You must be debating yourself again. I never made any assertion to the contrary.

The accused is still left facing punishment for their enfraction.

Accused people are not punished. Your slip is showing.

Nullification ONLY occurs when the the accused is found NOT GUILTY by the jury, in spite of the evidence.

All of this is YOUR definition, not backed up by any authoritative source.

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

So far the only thing offered by you is opinions. You state them as fact, but they remain opinions.

[Protagoras]

, 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.

We can only go by what they said. Not your opinion of what you think they might or might not have hoped.

Whatever....

It's as good an argument as any you have thus far offered. :^}

[FourtySeven]

Yeah, that's what I've been told too, about the computer selection process.......I"m not so sure about that anymore. I know people that have NEVER gotten called in all their life, and, when I went in last time, I met this woman that had been selected and on a jury TEN times over the last ten years.

I really don't buy the "random selection" claim.

[HairOfTheDog]

This thread has managed to wonderfully twist jury nullification to seem AGAINST the notion of liberty and the rule of law, which is completely opposite the point of jury nullification. You've been sucked in, Howlin.

I think the point is, our poster here wants information on how to do a jury nullification when he hasn't even been put on a case yet, let alone know what kind! His bag is already packed and he doesn't know where he is going! He is coming into the process with his mind made up about what he wants to do: "stick it to 'the man'".

Jury nullification cases can be good. But they are rare for a reason, for situations that the law as written could not have predicted, and jury nullifications are not premeditated, but the hard decision of honest people who decide the just outcome cannot be to enforce a specific law for that specific circumstance. Not because one just 'doesn't like drug laws'.

[strela]

IMHO, if you can speak in complete sentences, wear shirts with buttons, and have any knowledge whatsoever of the US Constitution, you will never sit on a jury!

Tell me about it. I think wearing a coat and tie to jury selection automatically disqualifies you as well.

[Protagoras]

and jury nullifications are not premeditated, but the hard decision of honest people who decide the just outcome cannot be to enforce a specific law for that specific circumstance.

Again, opinion only.

[SauronOfMordor]

Why would anyone live in a state where people were arrested for witchcraft (or having an "illegal" gun).

Why should I have to move to get away from such laws (assuming there was a viable place to move to)?

[HamiltonJay]

No pro, once again your confusion of your dillusion and the facts are showing.

Hanging a jury does not Nullify the prosecution and potential punishment of the accused. Nullification is preventing the defendant from being punished even if they are in full violation of the letter of the law. It can be used to undermine the enforcement of unjust laws, or to act as a moral check for extenuating circumstance.


Hanging a JURY does not do this. The accussed may still be retried.. they are not protected from prosecution or potential punishment. Only a full verdict of NOT GUILTY protects a defendant from futher prosecution and possible punishment for the enfraction. One Juror cannot perform Jury Nullification.

Your absolute ignorace of the most fundamental concepts of our legal system is boundless. An idividual JUROR always has the right to vote his conscience, but 1 single jury does not nullify prosecution or punishment. To prevent the enforcement of an unjust law or to prevent punishment of a person who is by the letter of the law guilty, a jury must come back with a finding of NOT GUILTY. Any other conclusion does not accomplish protection of the accused... a hung jury = a mistrial and the accused is retried. Only a full finding of NOT GUILTY removes the ability of the accused from facing futher prosection and punishment for their enfraction.

You propose that a hung jury is jury nullification, I suggest to you, show me what precident you cite for such claims. All you have offered is opinion, opinion not backed by law or precident.

[Protagoras]

Not because one just 'doesn't like drug laws'.

Drug warriors are terrified of that. It's a good thing.

[Destructor]

Well, I'm glad to see that you not going into to this with any preconceived notions. (/sarcasm) Sounds like your mind is already made up!

[Salvation]

Great quotes to copy and remember!

[Protagoras]

You propose that a hung jury is jury nullification, I suggest to you, show me what precident you cite for such claims.

I suggest the same for you.

All you have offered is opinion,

Precisely what I have said about your contentions. You continue to make claims, but nothing to back them up. You continue to call them facts, no dice. Please cite authoritative sources to agree with your alleged definition. Until then, it is opinion, nothing more.

Hint,,,spell check more often or take ten deep breaths before posting.

[HairOfTheDog]

It's as good an argument as any you have thus far offered. :^}

What you are suggesting is that the law is not relevant to a jury's discussion, that they are not supposed to make every attempt to follow it correctly, that juries are independent of the law, and should decide cases based on their mood, politics, agendas, or whatever other 'moral' motive they might have for a decision.

You want a justice system ruled by committees, little independent committees where there is no consistency in the decisions they make because one jury might be pro-gun and the next might not like guns... Who are you gonna get on your case [shrug] I dunno.... luck of the draw. I would rather have a clear and understandable law and a ordered legal system than be judged by whims if my actions are called into question.

The justice system we have has laws and measures of proof that are not irrelevant. It means that a man facing a charge in one courtroom has the same standard of proof required, and the same predictable outcome based on the facts, whether he is in courtroom 1 or courtroom 2. It means that we have the rule of law, not anarchy by jury mood swing.

[LibertarianInExile]

I'm pretty sure that he was joking when he said "Stick it to the man," as that's what the little ;) icon means. Did you miss that, or are you just repeating this phrase to help your point along?

Additionally, he has certainly made up his mind about what he believes are unjust laws. And if a case comes in front of him that attempts to enforce one of these unjust laws, it is not silly that his mind would be made up. If there were laws passed banning handguns, I'd certainly be eager to serve on a jury case to have the opportunity to nullify verdicts against those charged with owning them. I would have serious doubts if they had been charged with HARMING others, but the idea is the same: voting to penalize a defendant under the law can and should be based on a juror's perception of whether the law is just or not.

Just because he knows that drug laws are unjust now doesn't make him wrong for wanting to apply his personal judgment as a juror. You would say he's wrong because he's decided in advance that a law is unjust; I would say that is proof of serious reflection on that law, as opposed to during the minimal time one serves as a juror.

And jury nullification is NOT rare for only the reasons you describe. It is also rare because there is an active effort to prevent defense attorneys from informing jurors, and to prevent jurors from informing other jurors, of their rights as free men to decide for themselves what justice truly entails. Established precedents deny the defense in most courtrooms a right to let jurors know their nullification right, and judges and legislators continue to force the use of prescribed jury instructions that do not include the jurors' duty to uphold JUSTICE, not just uphold 'the law.'

I say again, God forbid that lawyers have to justify their works to 12 honest, God-fearing, Constitution-loving men.

[The FRugitive]

I'm pretty sure that he was joking when he said "Stick it to the man," as that's what the little ;) icon means.

Yes, of course, I was as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

[Protagoras]

What you are suggesting is that the law is not relevant to a jury's discussion

Please do not invent things and then tell me what I said. Strawman alert.

You want a justice system ruled by committees,

Strawman alert repeated.

The justice system we have has laws and measures of proof that are not irrelevant.

Debating yourself? I have never asserted anything like that. Strawman