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.)

[Iwo Jima]

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,

I don't know what state you live in, but your research cannot possibly be correct for any state. We have a Constitutional right to a trial by jury. Jury is defined by Webster's dictionary (which Noah Webster wrote just so that the meaning of words used at the time the Constitution was drafted could be forever preserved) as the judges of the law and the facts. The United States Supreme Court has so held.

When the Constitution and the Supreme Court have so clearly set forth this right to trial by jury, no state can deprive anyone of the these rights. Any state action which purports to overturn the Constitution or the Supreme Court is a nullity which all jurors can and should ignore in the interests of justice and freedom and our traditional American way of life.

I am sorry that you did not do a better job of researching the issue so that you would arrive at the truth.

[DAnconia55]

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

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-

Great. You've posted another invalid law. Good job!

[MEGoody]

Nice quotes. So exactly which one of them do you think gives juries the right to change the law? (By saying they 'judge' the law, that is exactly what you are suggesting they have the power to do.)

[MEGoody]

"I am sorry that you did not do a better job of researching the issue so that you would arrive at the truth."

The truth is, it is not the job of a jury to legislate. Judging a law as wrong and voting to not hold a person accountable for violating that law is legislating from the jury deliberation room.

I suppose you also think it is okay for judges to legislate from the bench. That's a rather liberal view. . .something better suited to DU.

[technochick99]

Juries aren't changing the law. They are refusing to apply it. That is a big difference. We have so many laws on the books that both police and attorneys look the other way on things of their own choosing.

[ProudArmyWife]

Ummm that law was just for the meaning of anarchy! Thanks for playing I am not in this debate!

[Roscoe]

Unless the state passes an amendment giving it the power, it is then reserved to the people.

Backwards. Source, please.

[Roscoe]

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.

[technochick99]

From a faculy page at the U of MO - Kansas City Law school:

What is jury nullification? Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate that are charged with deciding.

When has jury nullification been practiced? The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels, the only issue the court said the jury was open to decide as the truth or falsity of the statements was ruled to be irrelevant, the jury returned with a verdict of "Not Guilty."
Jury nullification appeared at other times in our history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws. In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act. In the mid 1800s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws. And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws.

More recent examples of nullification might include acquittals of "mercy killers," including Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and minor drug offenders.


Do juries have the right to nullify? Juries clearly have the power to nullify; whether they also have the right to nullify is another question. Once a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty," that verdict cannot be questioned by any court and the "double jeopardy" clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge.
Early in our history, judges often informed jurors of their nullification right. For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]." In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed.

Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late 1800s. In 1895, in United States v Sparf, the U. S. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney's request to let the jury know of their nullification power.

Courts recently have been reluctant to encourage jury nullification, and in fact have taken several steps to prevent it. In most jurisdictions, judges instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them, whether they agree with the law or not. Only in a handful of states are jurors told that they have the power to judge both the facts and the law of the case. Most judges also will prohibit attorneys from using their closing arguments to directly appeal to jurors to nullify the law.

Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right, when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her intention to vote to nullify the law.


If jurors have the power to nullify, shouldn't they be told so? That's a good question. As it stands now, jurors must learn of their power to nullify from extra-legal sources such as televised legal dramas, novels, or articles about juries that they might have come across. Some juries will understand that they do have the power to nullify, while other juries may be misled by judges into thinking that they must apply the law exactly as it is given. Many commentators have suggested that it is unfair to have a defendant's fate depend upon whether he is lucky enough to have a jury that knows it has the power to nullify.
Judges have worried that informing jurors of their power to nullify will lead to jury anarchy, with jurors following their own sympathies. They suggest that informing of the power to nullify will increase the number of hung juries. Some judges also have pointed out that jury nullification has had both positive and negative applications--the negative applications including some notorious cases in which all-white southern juries in the 1950s and 1960s refused to convict white supremacists for killing blacks or civil rights workers despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt. Finally, some judges have argued that informing jurors of their power to nullify places too much weight on their shoulders--that is easier on jurors to simply decide facts, not the complex issues that may be presented in decisions about the morality or appropriateness of laws.

On the other hand, jury nullification provides an important mechanism for feedback. Jurors sometimes use nullification to send messages to prosecutors about misplaced enforcement priorities or what they see as harassing or abusive prosecutions. Jury nullification prevents our criminal justice system from becoming too rigid--it provides some play in the joints for justice, if jurors use their power wisely.

[savedbygrace]

Are you suggesting that the powers of the people are only given by the states? That's backwards.

[Roscoe]

C'mon, can't you source any of your assertions?

[Iwo Jima]

"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.

I find this statement breathtakingly arrogant and ignorant. First, the defendant may not be released because he may not be in jail -- he may be and usually is out on bail!

Second, I doubt that any defendant would feel aggrieved because of a mistrial. Of course, if he does feel put upon, he can certainly plead guilty and not undergo the "ordeal" of a second trial.

There is probably a 50-50 chance that the prosecution will try a case after a first mistrial. There is rarely a prosecution after a second mistrial. So hanging a jury can indeed accomplish something meaningful for the defendant before the court, which as a juror is your primary concern.

Think about how you would feel if you were on trial for running over a kangaroo rat while mowing your property or pouring apple juice into a stream (real cases) and stood to be sent to prison for a long time and maybe the rest of your life and lose everything that you had ever worked for your entire life. Tell me that you would not want your jurors to say "This is bull$h!t" and acquit you even though you actually did do what the government said that you did.

[Boot Hill]

Protagoras says:   "And I mock him to his face. Not to mention you."

Even though Roscoe and I differ in our view about jury nullification, I'll take Roscoe any of the week over those that would post such anarchist nonsense as: "Justice has nothing to do with the law".

--Boot Hill

[Roscoe]

I doubt that any defendant would feel aggrieved because of a mistrial.

His victims might. The taxpayers might.

[Iwo Jima]

I don't understand that quote at all (I know that it is not your quote). I think that the law should have everything to do with justice, and when it does not, then all available legal means should be used to correct such an injustice, including refusing to convict defendants of unjust laws.

[Roscoe]

Roscoe and I differ in our view about jury nullification

I noticed. And as I respect your opinions, it gave me pause.

Nullification is a two edged sword.

[tpaine]

To: Howlin; Roscoe
I know many FIJA types, and Roscoe could not be more wrong. "FIJA" stands for "Fully Informed Jury Association." They do not advocate jury nullification. Instead, they advocate that jurors be told the truth about their powers and responsibilities -- that they are the judges of the law as well as the facts and that there can be no recourse against them for any verdict which they render even if they choose to acquit when the evidence is such as to prove that the accused in fact committed the offense with which he was charged.
That a jury has the rights and powers that FIJA wants juries to be told about is not really disputed. What the opponents of FIJA maintain is that juries should not be fully informed about their powers because if they know what powers they have, they just might use them. I find should a condescending attitude inappropriate for our system of government.
291 Iwo Jima



"Jury nullification is contrary to our ideal of equal justice for all and permits both the prosecution's case and the defendant's fate to depend upon the whims of a particular jury, rather than upon the equal application of settled rules of law." -- California Supreme Court, People v. Williams, 25 Cal.4th 441 (2001).


Different states have different standards.
-roscoe- un-informed as usual

But all states must conform to our BOR's, - and as the 6th enumerates, ~informed~ defendants and impartial jurys are required. They are "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;" -- certainly, part of that information would include the constitutional base of the law that caused the trial.
And certainly, the defendant could argue how the nature of that law did not apply to his specific case.

But no, -- not in the pettifogging, unconstitutional lawyers world we inhabit.
- Shakespeare was right.

[Iwo Jima]

The taxpayers should demand that the legislature not pass and the prosecutors not prosecute unjust laws. As for victims, most of these cases do not involve actual victims -- that's why juries are disinclined to convict. And, of course, until the defendant is convicted, he has no victims because he is an innocent man until proven guilty.

This issue rarely comes up when you have a real victim of an actual crime.

[Iron Eagle]

You guess right!

In the 1850's, the Supreme Court held that Blacks were Chattel. Which, by the way, was consistent with the U.S. Constitution. Fortunately, however, we aren't stuck with that decision.

The Hamilton quote does not support your assertion that jurors decide the law. The Adams quote, is pre-U.S. Constitution. And, the Jefferson Quote certainly does not support your conclusion.

The jury system is great. And it is vital to our way of life and jurisprudence. Jurors, however, determine the facts, not the application of law.

For what purpose is the judge there? Is he just the sargent at arms? He just there to referee?

Next time a juror makes a ruling of law anywhere in this country, you let me know. Next time they make a ruling on an objection, you let me know. Why is it that every Friday I have to argue my motions on the law before Judges, without the presence of Jurors? Can't we just put twelve freepers in the box and let them rule as a matter of law on my summary judgment motions, motions in limine, motions to dismiss, objections, discovery motions, and protective orders?

Sorry, the system is there so that a jury of one's peers can determine the facts, including the credibility of witnesses, and the reliability of proof. They also determine if the parties meet their respective burdens of proof. They do not rule on matters of law. Period.

[ProudArmyWife]

HOOAH!