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.)

[technochick99]

I think the reference that justice has nothing to do with the law comes from the anecdote of one SC jurist saying to the other 'Go forth and do justice', and the reply being 'I am going forth to administer the law, not justice'. I am terribly paraphrasing this, but something similar has been said.

[ProudArmyWife]

Oh and welcome back Iron Eagle ;)

[tpaine]

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.)
303 -MG-

Typical misunderstanding of basics.
-- The jury applies the law to the defendants actions ~in that specific case~, and makes a decision binding on that case only.
They are not "changing law".

[Dick Bachert]

From Section 1 of the Georgia Constitution (one of 3 or 4 state constitutions still so written):

Paragraph XI. Right to trial by jury; number of jurors; selection and compensation of jurors. (a) The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts.

(EMPHASIS ADDED FOR THE DUMMIES WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THE PEOPLE ARE THE FINAL JUDGES OF THE LAW!)

[ProudArmyWife]

Bites her tongue!!!

[Iron Eagle]

Thanks. And thank you for your service to our country. I didn't wear the uniform, but my father wore it as volunteer at age 17. He wore it through the south pacific, and again in korea with the United States Marines. Two of my brothers wore it too, in the service of the Corps.

Of my Father's 13 siblings, six of the boys wore the Uniform in WWII. Two others wore it proudly there after. I am keenly aware of the duty to protect the Constitution. My family has paid the price in service to that duty. When I decided to study law, it was against that backdrop.

Of course, that is why I spend my pro-bono time defending those charged by the state, or those who could not otherwise afford my services.

I am happy to do it. I can tell you this, I am bound by my duty as an officer of the Court, as an American, and as an ethical person to use every power in my possession to zealously represent my clients, and I do so. And in my life and practice, I a not aware -- anywhere -- of the right of Jurors to decide questions of law.

IMHO -- The Constitution we quote here so passionately, and which you and others have defended at the risk of your own lives, deserves nothing less than a principled application of the separation of powers. If jurors believe that they can disregard the rule of law because they disagree with it, I believe they dishonor us all, not least of all, I believe that such an attack on the Constitution is an affront to those who have served, and those, like members of my family, whose names are on plaques and monuments, or buried in far-off lands.

[Iwo Jima]

Thank you for that informative post. Other states have similar provisions in their constitutions. As I have repeatedly stated, the issue is not whether juries are the judges of the law as well as the facts, as they clearly are according to the United States Supreme Court and our American traditions. The question is: shall juries 1) be told that they are the judges of the law and the facts, 2) be told nothing about their ability to judge the law, or 3) be lied to and told that they have no ability to judge the law?

FIJA says tell them their correct powers or at least say nothing. Do not lie to them. Truth = good. Lying = bad

[archy]

From Section 1 of the Georgia Constitution. ... Paragraph XI...

From the Constitution of the State of Indiana, Article I [Bill of Rights] Section 19:

In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

[Emphasis mine.]

-archy-/-

[Boot Hill]

Iwo Jima says:   "I don't understand that quote at all (I know that it is not your quote)."

If we presume that the goal of law is obtain some (arguably limited) measure of justice, that places the concept of justice superior to, but firmly connected to, that of law. For Protagoras to disconnect the two is to a clear call for anarchy and Roscoe and howlin were quite correct to strongly condemn him for that position.

Just as there are a few exceptional cases that cry out for the application of jury nullification, it is equally certain that there is a clique of posters here (as seen in that quote by Protagoras) whose only goal, in advocating jury nullification, is the destruction of society and the rule of law.

Jury nullification, like fire, is a dangerous tool. In the hands of a fool, it can destroy our constitutional Republic. The sanctity of the right of jury nullification is found not in its reckless use, but in its wise, limited, judicious and cautious application.

--Boot Hill

[tpaine]

"I a not aware -- anywhere -- of the right of Jurors to decide questions of law."
-IE-

I suggest you re-read this thread itself, where numerous quotes have been posted from USSC decisions on down to opinions from the founding fathers.
The VI amendment itself belies your contention. How can a jury be impartial if not fully informed of the nature & cause of the charge against the defendant?
And, - how could it be said that due process was observed without arguing a complete defense before that same jury?

[savedbygrace]

You'll find some sourcing and cites here: http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jph13/JuryNullification.html

There are plenty of other sources, but let's start with one for now.

BTW, what are your sources and cites?

[archy]

I am bound by my duty as an officer of the court.

Counselor, it is my understanding that the various states' bar associations require the oath of an attorney to support and defend the Constitution, worded essentially the same as that of those in military service, as it is for most law enforcement officials other than those in the U.S. Marshall's service.

Those who stand by their oaths are as much a part of the defense of the Constitution as and soldier, sailor, Marine or airman. Those who do not are nothing less than perjurers, and under some circumstances, can face a death penalty for such perjury.

You or I may disagree or be incorrect about our interpretations of the constitution abnd how it is to be applied. But those who would parse and interpret the Constitution to suit their own agendas may well find themselves at the end of a rope, and the choice of whether the rope is pulled by a mob or a victorious occupying hostile army is a fairly meaningless one.

And as they would see the U.S. Constitution diluted or made moot, they would be well advised to reflect on the downfall of the once-mighty Soviet Union, and of the end that came to Romania's Nicolai Ceaucescu.

-archy-/-

[tpaine]

"Jury nullification, like fire, is a dangerous tool. In the hands of a fool, it can destroy our constitutional Republic."
--Boot Hill

How can this simple tool "destroy" our republic?
- Pontificate all you like of fools, but specifics are needed to convince an FR jury of your peers.

[Iron Eagle]

Well -- the Constitution is very lucky to have two individuals like you and me to defend it from those who would attempt to undermind the Freedoms it guaruntees.

[archy]

And in my life and practice, I a not aware -- anywhere -- of the right of Jurors to decide questions of law.

See posts #324 and #328, et alia

-archy-/-

[archy]

How can this simple tool "destroy" our republic?

- Pontificate all you like of fools, but specifics are needed to convince a FR jury of your peers.

By undermining or ending confidence in the courts as a place where justice is dispensed as reasonably and fairly as humanly possible, rather than just as another institution of our society with a pricetag on it where those who can afford to best play the game are the only ones with a chance of winning it. It doesn't take long from there for the rot to spread to the legislative and executive branches, whose inhabitants are then also seen mostly as whores and mercenaries, and pretty quickly, begin behaving accordingly.

Such a system is hardly worth defending, and certainly not worth giving one's life for; after all, I'm not getting my fair cut of the action. Let the enemies have it, whether from outside or within. It's not Jury nullification that is itself bad or evil; that the practice continues in Georgia and Indiana, and possibly elsewhere is proof of that. It's when it's mispplied to weaken or dilute the force of law, as by Juries looking for any excuse to acquit, or hang a jury, or at least grease the rails of the process of justice that far too often does indeed appear to be a railroad track.

Jury nullification is a toolthat should exist, but should stay so dusty and in a back corner filled with cobwebs that it's nearly forgotten- as it nearly has been. But every now and again, as in the Peter Zenger case, it needs to be dusted off, and the more corrupt the court and the courtroom practicioners are, and the more they've strayed from the original intention of this country's founders, the more they hate the idea that jury members have a power to checkmate their actions.

-archy-/-

[tpaine]

You or I may disagree or be incorrect about our interpretations of the constitution and how it is to be applied. But those who would parse and interpret the Constitution to suit their own agendas may well find themselves at the end of a rope, and the choice of whether the rope is pulled by a mob or a victorious occupying hostile army is a fairly meaningless one
-archy-

Well said.
We have had a 3 or 4 generation hiatus from serious internal strife/rebellion in this country, and most of the power structure wonks simply seem to think it will never again happen.
- The simple logic of history tells us they are fools.

[tpaine]

How can this simple tool "destroy" our republic? - Pontificate all you like of fools, but specifics are needed to convince a FR jury of your peers.

By undermining or ending confidence in the courts as a place where justice is dispensed as reasonably and fairly as humanly possible,

I'd say the courts have ~lost~ the publics confidence, exactly because they oppose fully informed juries.

rather than just as another institution of our society with a pricetag on it where those who can afford to best play the game are the only ones with a chance of winning it. It doesn't take long from there for the rot to spread to the legislative and executive branches, whose inhabitants are then also seen mostly as whores and mercenaries, and pretty quickly, begin behaving accordingly.

Yep, you've described in a few lines our countries sell out to moneyed interests. Informed jurys could help stop this trend, imo.

Such a system is hardly worth defending, and certainly not worth giving one's life for; after all, I'm not getting my fair cut of the action. Let the enemies have it, whether from outside or within.
It's not Jury nullification that is itself bad or evil; that the practice continues in Georgia and Indiana, and possibly elsewhere is proof of that.
It's when it's misapplied to weaken or dilute the force of law, as by Juries looking for any excuse to acquit, or hang a jury, or at least grease the rails of the process of justice that far too often does indeed appear to be a railroad track.

I see no specifics where this 'missapplication' has happened often, -- or will.

Jury nullification is a tool that should exist, but should stay so dusty and in a back corner filled with cobwebs that it's nearly forgotten- as it nearly has been. But every now and again, as in the Peter Zenger case, it needs to be dusted off, and the more corrupt the court and the courtroom practicioners are, and the more they've strayed from the original intention of this country's founders, the more they hate the idea that jury members have a power to checkmate their actions. -archy-/-

Nope, I'd say we should dust it off to to restore some sanity to an admittedly very sick system.

[Oztrich Boy]

However, do not tell any one about jury nullification, dont discuss it with anyone, including other members of the jury, do not tell other members of the jury that you can vote any way that you want.

And if you want to be on the jury you shouldn't admit that you know anything about it.

to FRugitive, as you have said don't lie if asked, but if you are questioned about your views on the topic, it would be a could be time to get precise information on what the meaning of "is" is. Make the court define exactly what they are asking; you wouldn't want to mislead them by admitting to something they aren't asking, would you?:^)

Their whole strategy for preventing Jury Nullification is based on the jury members not knowing anything about it

[waterstraat]

Since nobody here can agree on what "jury Nullification" really is, it would not be a lie, nor perjury, to say/answer: that you really dont know what jury nullification is. I am not sure either, but I know I can vote not guilty any time I want to, for whatever reason, and I dont have to explain myself, nor my verdict. I just say that I dont think the prosecution proved its case, and leave it at that.