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.)

[Protagoras]

I have learned more about jury nullification by reading this thread than by spending 7 years in college.

Sadly that could be said about any number of subjects. :^}

[archy]

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

So where is the killer? Why isn't he behind bars?

Had the prosecution offered a more likely scenario than the *OJ did it all by himself, but using two different knives* theory to which the jury found a reasonable doubt, that question might well have been answered, along with the question of who the otherkiller was.

It would not however have answered questions as to who murdered the other waiter from the Mezzaluna Restaurant where Ron Goldman was employed, who murdered Judge Ito's bailiff, or who shot the private detective investigating the DNA evidence to death. Nor several other deaths from the same time period that may well have been linked.

The jury smelled a rat, particularly after Judge Ito's wife Margaret York had testified. And when the prosecution and court appear to be running a railroad, that is indeed grounds for a juror to have reasonable doubt. -archy-/-

[Nov3]

Your job is not to interpret the law. It's to decide guilt or innocence of the charge.

That is what the government would have you think

[AppyPappy]

The prosecution was inept, a guilty man went free because of it.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! OJ kills two people and it's the prosecution's fault. Only in California can you find a jury that can see enough evidence to convict a man but ignore it in favor of "ineptness".

Face it, the jury didn't want to convict OJ PERIOD. It was jury nullification.

[AppyPappy]

So if a jury says "It's OK to kill Jews", it's open season on Jews. Brilliant.

[Protagoras]

Ham,

You have offered nothing but your opinion,

offering nothing legally factual to back it up

... you obviously failed social studies spelling in grade school.

Go back to civics, look up double jeapardy, look up jury nullification.. A mistrial is not nullification, nor is a hung jury.

Still no authoritative definition. Opinion only.

[archy]

Do you like movies about Gladiators?

Movies? That's like watching football on TV.

I always cry when Retiarius looses....

-archy-/-

[Protagoras]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Please don't cry old fella, it's just the internet.

OJ kills two people and it's the prosecution's fault.

I never said it was the prosecutions fault that OJ murdered two people. Where do you get this stuff?

Only in California can you find a jury that can see enough evidence to convict a man but ignore it in favor of "ineptness".

The prosecution made many mistakes, but the one that showed their ineptness the most and sealed their fate was their moronic, PC inspired decision to move the venue to LA proper. It made jury nullification a much more likely outcome.

Face it, the jury didn't want to convict OJ PERIOD. It was jury nullification.

I agree, who are you debating?

[Khepera]

Thats the deal. Thats why you try to get a jury of your peers. It also allows jurys to disagree with the law and right a wrongful charge. Say the government maks it illegal to eat butter but the jury does not think that is a crime, this allows them to say so.

[savedbygrace]

You missed the point.

The jury decided it was more important to protect the public against what they perceived as an illegal (as opposed to unlawful) and out of control prosecution, than to protect the public against one killer.

That's the essence of jury nullification, that a jury is willing to let a murderer (or thief, rapist, drug user, or whatever) go free in order to restrain the government.

Whether you agree with that or not isn't the issue. You were misrepresenting what jury nullification is. That was my point, not whether I thought the Simpson jury did good or bad.

[HairOfTheDog]

Strawman alert...

Fine.... I took your philosophy and ran with it to its reasonable outcome. I can't state it any better than I have for you.

I give up. You will only continue to miss the point, as is your right.

[HamiltonJay]

Ah, I see, NO controlling legal authority.. how good of you to be here Al...


Ok here ya go Al, You have just deadlocked a jury, you refuse to convict because you believe the law the defendant violated is unjust.... Judge declares a mistrial... tell me mister controlling authority... what happens to the defendant now? Since you think this action will prevent punishment for unjust laws... tell me Sir, what happens to your defendant now?

[HamiltonJay]

Pro has no point, he subscribes to the present nothing but keep talking debating school.... With minor in ignore facts, and call them opinion.

[Protagoras]

Fine.... I took your philosophy and ran with it to its reasonable outcome

Your interpretation of "reasonable" is suspect. It's kinda like you guessing what the founders hoped for. (Democrats do that all the time too, which is neither here nor there)

I give up.

Excellent choice. But a retreat ought to be graceful, not hurling insults as you run for the hills. :^}

[Protagoras]

With minor in ignore facts,

Please present some.

[HairOfTheDog]

I give up. >>> Excellent choice. But a retreat ought to be graceful, not hurling insults as you run for the hills. :^}

I don't like that rule, and I choose to ignore it because it pleases me.

[Protagoras]

Since you think this action will prevent punishment for unjust laws...

Strawman. You keep bringing up this irrelevant point, as if someone other than you ever brought it up. Amazing persistence in pursuing fantasy.

[AppyPappy]

The jury decided it was more important to protect the public against what they perceived as an illegal (as opposed to unlawful) and out of control prosecution, than to protect the public against one killer.

Oh please. If this had been some street kid, he'd still be doing time.

[HamiltonJay]

Pro,

Here ya go, Definition directly from the the NOLO Legal Dictionary:

JURY NULLIFICATION:


A decision by the jury to acquit a defendant who has violated a law that the jury believes is unjust or wrong. Jury nullification has always been an option for juries in England and the United States, although judges will prevent a defense lawyer from urging the jury to acquit on this basis. Nullification was evident during the Vietnam war (when selective service protesters were acquitted by juries opposed to the war) and currently appears in criminal cases when the jury disagrees with the punishment--for example, in "three strikes" cases when the jury realizes that conviction of a relatively minor offense will result in lifetime imprisonment.


As you can planely see, nullification requires the JURY TO ACQUIT, not be hung. Have a nice day... Another house of your opinion cards goes crashing to the floor.

[Protagoras]

I don't like that rule, and I choose to ignore it because it pleases me

I admire your sense of humor.