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]

[ProudArmyWife]

Anarchy

Anarchy is absence of government, state of society where there is no law or supreme power; lawlessness or political disorder; destructive of and confusion in government. At its best it pertains to a society made orderly by good manners rather than law, in which each person produces according to his powers and receives according to his needs, and at its worse, the word pertains to a terroistric resistance of all present government and social order


Criminal anarchy

The doctrine that organzied government should be overthrown by force and violence or other unlawful means. The advocacy of such doctrine has been made a felony. See Whitney v. California

[Protagoras]

You cannot imagine how thrilled I am that I am not a person you'd choose to agree with.

Based on your posts, I can't recall ever agreeing with you on anything. It's bound to happen sometime.

2+2=4,, agreed?

[Protagoras]

A recent meeting of the cult of liberty haters.

LOL, dueling pictures.

[Howlin]

I see your parents in the second row.

[Roscoe]

And reaching back to 1828:

AN'ARCHY, n. [Gr. rule.]

Want of government; a state of society, when there is no law or supreme power, or when the laws are not efficient, and individuals do what they please with impunity; political confusion.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary

[Protagoras]

Time to go, anyway you guys are late for your "three minute hate". Have fun!

[ProudArmyWife]

No thats me! (kidding of course) Just failing at trying to make someone smile Darnit!

[Roscoe]

Good guess. :)

[Howlin]

I find it mildly amusing that anybody who disagrees with you has to be a hater.

I believe you are, in fact, a liberal. You sure argue like one.

[ProudArmyWife]

I hate everyone equally! :P

[Roscoe]

Without law, justice fails and anarchy reigns.

"The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of necessity produces despotism." --Thomas Jefferson

[MEGoody]

Ah, so as a juror, you would not assess the evidence in light of the law, but you would cast your jurists' vote in light of your own political leanings?

Weren't you on the OJ Simpson jury?

[Roscoe]

"three minute hate"

In Orwell's 1984 the absence of fixed law resulted in ultimate tyranny.

[LibertarianInExile]

I can't see how this could be the case with FRugitive--we're not talking about someone who announced he was going in to set the court straight on the whole Clinton debacle, or something else irrelevant to the matter at hand. He's talking about taking advantage of his opportunity to personally affect a trial that I am sure you agree has a good chance to include prosecution under laws he feels are unjust. And I don't think that means he's up to make just ANY kind of statement, I think it means he's interested in speaking where he sees his voice is relevant and legitimately applied. He pointed out that where force or fraud was concerned, he'll certainly uphold the law.

Certainly, he has predispositions concerning which laws he'd consider just. As do you. I'm certain that if you were to have served on the Senate panel impeaching Clinton you'd have had objections to the format of the trial and the questions posed. None but the Senate had that ability, but here, FRugitive has objections and the opportunity to excercise limited power in a forum that's appropriate.

Your comment regarding 'whether the facts warrant it or not,' is simply missing the point. Certainly, in the event of a jury nullification, the facts MEET the legal requirements for conviction. It's whether the law is just or not that the jury is there to decide as well. If it were not, there would never have been juries empaneled--judges could certainly have decided on the facts of the case, and perhaps more accurately than today's juries do. The question is, do judges follow 'the law' or follow the aims of justice? And the answer is, judges follow the law. The jury, and its power to nullify injustice, is the last bastion of a legal system bound to the people, not to the legislature or the prosecutor.

RE: the other issue you seemed worried about, I hope that based on others' responses, you now understand that your comments were incorrect. If YOU were being brought into court as a defendant, you would have nothing to fear from FRugitive on the jury. On the contrary, you would have a much more conscientious juror than the average, and be LESS likely to be convicted.

[MEGoody]

"tend to readily accept such a statement to mean that you'll blindly take the judge's statement of the law as "the law."

I just served on a jury. Because of previous discussions on FR I did some research prior to reporting. At least in my state, it is NOT the duty of a jurist to interpret law or to make a judgment on whether the law as it stands is right or wrong. It is only the jurists' job to assess the evidence provided in light of the law as stated by the judge.

Saying that a jurist has the right to express political leanings through a jurist vote is like saying it is okay for judges to legislate from the bench.

Shame on those who do not take their duty as jurists seriously enough to do it correctly.

[Howlin]

I understand that that is the way you see it; I don't.

[Roscoe]

At least in my state, it is NOT the duty of a jurist to interpret law or to make a judgment on whether the law as it stands is right or wrong.

Good point. Different states, different laws. A point which I haven't ever seen jury nullification advocates address.

[Dane]

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.

Exactly.

JMO, but FRugitive's motive was spelled out in his 60's Jane Fonda retread chant of "sticking it to the man".

[MEGoody]

"Causing a hung jury"

Results in the defendent being held in jail longer while awaiting another trial (unless they happen to have the money available to post bail). Results in additonal tax dollars being spent on yet another trial.

"Hanging" a jury because one disagrees with a law doesn't do anyone any favors. It just feeds the ego of the one doing the "hanging". The law doesn't change, and the defendent isn't released.