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.)

[savedbygrace]

You continue to miss the point, so I conclude it's intentional.

See ya. Wouldn't wanna be ya.

[HairOfTheDog]

I admire your sense of humor.

Dang! - If I had known that, I would have used this!

[Iwo Jima]

You'd be surprised how far you can get by responding to a variety of questions about whether you could convict by saying "I would make my decision based on the facts and the law" or "I would be guided by the law" or "I can follow the law"(depending on how the question was phrased). Give these responses over and over again like a broken record. They won't spend too much time on you.

Of course, we know that the Constitution is the ultimate law. As the Supreme Court has said, any law contrary to the Constitution is void. We also know that the Supreme Court has held that it is the DUTY of the jury to judge both the facts and the law. Therefore, if you as a juror do not judge the law, you are failing to do your sworn duty.

It is not your fault if the prosecutor or the judge assumes that a statement to the effect of "I can follow the law" to mean the law as stated by the judge. For good reasons, they don't want to probe too deeply in this area and tend to readily accept such a statement to mean that you'll blindly take the judge's statement of the law as "the law."

That's their problem, not yours. Unless you are asked whether you will take what the judge tells you as what the law is, then you don't have to let them know that in your view the judge does not have the final word on what the law is.

[Iwo Jima]

You seem to be trying to pick a fight with Protagoras, and I don't know why. "Jury nullification" is an imprecise term, as it seems to imply that a law has been nullified. Of course, when a jury acquits based on their opinon that the law is unjust or illegal, the law is not nullified, it is simply not allowed to be applied in one particular case. An acquittal is an acquittal, and regardless of the reasons, double jeopardy applies and the defendant can never be tried for that offense again.

If one juror votes not guilty based on his view of the law, that creates a hung jury and a mistrial will be declared. The defendant can be tried again (and again and again) until a unanimous verdict is reached one way or another.

I don't think that what you have said is any different than what I just said, but then I don't think that Protagorous said anything different either. I just don't see what has gotten you so hot and bothered.

[HamiltonJay]

You've been check mated a dozen times by several people here... you have even put up an argument other than "I Don't believe you"...

A hung jury is not a Nullification... only someone with complete ignorance of the law could make the claim that Nullification prevents prosecution and punishment of unjust lawas, and then claim an act that does neither of these things is an act of Nullification. Your opinion can't even pass the smell test let alone the logic or legal test..... Have an nice day... your ship has sailed.

[Roscoe]

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

Exactly.

[AppyPappy]

Just like a juror can say "There are too many brothers in prison already"

[Roscoe]

As you can planely see, nullification requires the JURY TO ACQUIT, not be hung.

But delaying justice, wasting the court's time and creating additional costs for the taxpayers also serves the agenda of some.

[Protagoras]

I just don't see what has gotten you so hot and bothered.

History.

[HamiltonJay]

No arguement it may serve someones agenda, but that is not Nullification.

[Protagoras]

wasting the court's forums time and creating additional costs for the taxpayers site owners also serves the agenda of some.

[Iron Eagle]

Thanks -- I don't know if I am a legal eagle. It seems I don't know a damn thing about the law. To think, instead of all that education, years of trianing, and actually working to represent clients, all I really needed was a few hours to read this thread, and I would know everything about the law. :-)

So far, we have the natural rights folks. We have dozens of quotes attributed to people and justices. (Some are really great, because they actually pre-date the ratification of the Constitution!!!).

My favorites are the ones who actually take offense to someone having a law degree, and then treating the same as a disqualifier from the discourse.

Anyway, this is always fun. That's why I keep coming back. The best part is, most of these "normal" people spend all this time trying to figure out why they don't get picked for juries!! It's a holler!! Anyway, its nice to bump into someone who is lucid and friendly. Hello back to you.

[Iwo Jima]

You might enjoy reading the FIJA website. I think that it just might change your mind on this issue.

Noah Webster wrote his dictionary when he did for the express purpose of preserving the meaning of the words as used when our Republic was created so that there would be a record of what words used in the Constitution and other important founding documents would never be forgotten. Webster defined "jury" as judge of the facts and the law!

The Supreme Court has confirmed that the jury is the judge of the law as well as the facts, and to my knowledge has never held otherwise. When the prosecutor or trial judge tells the jury that the law is what the judge says and that the jury cannot judge the law, they are just not being truthful.

Having a jury to judge the law is an important part of our heritage and a part of what the American Revolution was all about. It is an essential defense of a free people against unjust, illegal, and oppressive laws.

[Roscoe]

wasting the forums time and creating additional costs for the site owners also serves the agenda of some.

That, too.

[Protagoras]

You could have saved 25 posts if you had posted this earlier. I never said you were wrong, I merely asked you to post a definition by someone other than yourself.

The nit picking point was yours, it is irrelevant to the reality of jury nullification. I never asserted a definition, I stated repeatedly that my posts were my opinion.

[Iwo Jima]

Causing a hung jury in the prosecution of an illegal or unjust law is not a delay in justice. It is a delay in INJUSTICE and maybe even a defeat. And that's good.

[Protagoras]

That, too.

And the Bosco agenda showed itself long ago on this thread, and every other thread for that matter.

[Roscoe]

Causing a hung jury in the prosecution of an illegal or unjust law is not a delay in justice.

Causing a hung jury because of a cult's hatred of the rule of law is a delay in justice.

[ProudArmyWife]

Stand your ground Iron Eagle! I have my views, but I haven chosen to remain silent on this issue. While it is true some people retain "Cracker Jack J.D.'s", most just babble to babble. It is entertainment! :)

[dljordan]

Do a search on FIJA. Fully Informed Jury Association. They'll send you info if you want it.