Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I just got called for Jury duty for the first time (want info on Jury Nullification) - VANITY

Posted on 03/12/2003 7:27:40 AM PST by 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.)


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: jurormisconduct; jurytampering
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 441-452 next last
To: Semper Paratus
In regard to the O.J. verdict, people forget what some of the jurors said in post-trial interviews:

The first jury instruction from Judge Ito pertained to the "crime scene timeline." Several jurors stated that the Prosecution did not prove to them beyond a reasonable doubt, that O.J. had time to commit the crime. They interpreted the instruction, decided the fact, and applied the law.

You or I may not agree with their decision, but it was not a case of jury nullification.

261 posted on 03/12/2003 1:18:57 PM PST by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
"Your duty as a juror is to judge both the facts and the law."

Not according to the laws in my state, and what little research I did on the laws of other states didn't turn up any support for such a claim either (no matter what FIJA says). Neither judges NOR jurors are legislators.

262 posted on 03/12/2003 1:20:02 PM PST by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Neither judges NOR jurors are legislators.

Great quote!

263 posted on 03/12/2003 1:24:53 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
"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
264 posted on 03/12/2003 1:25:58 PM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
"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
265 posted on 03/12/2003 1:26:38 PM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Different states, different laws. A point which I haven't ever seen jury nullification advocates address.
266 posted on 03/12/2003 1:29:40 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: The FRugitive
You're asking the wrong questions. What you should be asking is: is there air conditioning/heating in the main jury room or courtroom? Is there a workable bathroom? Are there enough seats for the 3,000 people called on the first day of jury duty? Once you get stuck on a jury, can you be assured that the foreman speaks English and believes in the 5th amendment? Will the judge threaten you with contempt if you giggle at a funny made by the defense counsel? And my favorite: if you deliberate on a Friday, will the judge sequester you around 12 o'clock in the afternoon (so he can get in a round of golf) while you and your fellow jurors spend the weekend at a Holiday Inn and are forced to eat dinner at the Pig 'N Whistle. All of this has happened to me over the last twenty five years - jury nullification never came up.
267 posted on 03/12/2003 1:33:15 PM PST by miss marmelstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Sorry to bust your bubble Bosco. All of it is irrelevant in the final analysis.

One of the last places where people can overcome your desired tyranny is in the jury box. Despite all your laws and all your wishes, people will vote to find defendants not guilty when thier concience leads them to. And they don't have to give any reason for their vote.

And that fact drives you control freaks wild. It's one of lifes little pleasures. :^}

268 posted on 03/12/2003 1:35:22 PM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Dane
It's called a joke you humorless little...
269 posted on 03/12/2003 1:37:03 PM PST by The FRugitive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Roscoe, it's one of those powers reserved to the people that Amendment X speaks of. Do you live in a state in which state law supercedes such powers?

When you boil it down, it could also be considered to be one of the Rights endowed by our Creator.

270 posted on 03/12/2003 1:37:07 PM PST by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
When you boil it down, it could also be considered to be one of the Rights endowed by our Creator.

He's not big on the whole creator thing. He thinks that laws define right and wrong.

He must like slavery, Jim Crow, genocide and Abortion on demand.

271 posted on 03/12/2003 1:39:57 PM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
All of it is irrelevant in the final analysis.

Oh?

South Dakota rejects jury nullification

Cry me a river.

272 posted on 03/12/2003 1:40:55 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
Roscoe, it's one of those powers reserved to the people that Amendment X speaks of.

Cite, please.

273 posted on 03/12/2003 1:42:20 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
I had to interpret the law on a jury I was on, Murder 1, murder 2 or manslaughter.
274 posted on 03/12/2003 1:44:41 PM PST by KneelBeforeZod (Deus Lo Volt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
harpseal says:   "The jury is the final judge of both law and facts."

The proof of this truth is that we even have a jury system in the first place.

The jury system would be totally unnecessary if the founding fathers had not intended there to one last "fire break" between the people and unjust prosecutions or unconstitutional laws. If this had not been the intent of the jury system, the Sixth Amendment would simply have required a trial before a panel of judges or governors.

--Boot Hill

275 posted on 03/12/2003 1:45:57 PM PST by Boot Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

You need to wear your "JANET RENO: BUTCHER OF WACO" shirt and when they ask you any questions, say "I do not recognize the authority of this court"
276 posted on 03/12/2003 1:46:05 PM PST by KneelBeforeZod (Deus Lo Volt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
He must like slavery

13th Amendment.

Jim Crow

Civil rights laws.

genocide

Non sequitur.

and Abortion on demand.

Backwards. State abortion laws were nullified by the judiciary.

Your aim needs work.

277 posted on 03/12/2003 1:46:31 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: The FRugitive
Not so sure that lying to prevent them from knowing your views would be morally wrong. Legally, yes. Morally?

The whole jury selection bit is immoral. It's an attempt to deprive the accused of a jury of their peers. It's an attempt by lawyers to sway the jury - so that both sides will remove all intelligent jurors.

Unlike some of the people here who don't get it, I would want you on my jury, and I would want you to lie to get there!

278 posted on 03/12/2003 1:49:20 PM PST by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Cite? You mean the words of the Constitution are only valid if a court case says they are? That's silly.

I cite the Constitution of the United States of America, which trumps your cites.

279 posted on 03/12/2003 1:49:32 PM PST by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: The Brush
LOL #48.... Most excellent.
280 posted on 03/12/2003 1:52:42 PM PST by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 441-452 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson