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]

Like I said, it was a very narrow decision, not the broad brush you tried to paint.

Bzzzzzzzt. Try again.

[Roscoe]

You're free to try to produce a source demonstrating the Barron was wrong. You don't have to always beg every question.

[Roscoe]

Like I said, it was a very narrow decision

Jurors who would nullify the law had no right to be on the jury.

[tpaine]

You're free to try to produce a source demonstrating the Barron was wrong.
-roscoe-

Again, - the source is the Constitution itself. - The 14th was ratified to settle the question raised by Barron.
Case closed.

[savedbygrace]

Roscoe, you're stuck in one groove and skipping badly.

Since you have nothing else to offer in defense of your theory, buh bye.

[tpaine]

Jurors who would nullify the law had no right to be on the jury.
-roscoe- totally confused again

Idiotic reasoning.
- How could a juror know that s/he would nullify before hearing the facts & law specific to the case?

Go back to 'logic' school roscoe.

[Roscoe]

Backwards. The decision was against your position so you made a vague and irrelevant claim that the decision was "narrow".

Your dodge failed.

[Roscoe]

How could a juror know that s/he would nullify before hearing the facts & law specific to the case?

The potential jurors were asked about their ability to apply a capital punishment law. Try to keep up.

[Roscoe]

Again, - the source is the Constitution itself.

False, question beggar.

"The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging 'the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone." -- U.S. v. Cruickshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

[savedbygrace]

Admit it, you didn't read the decision, did you? If you had, you wouldn't have made such an uninformed comment.

[Roscoe]

Is there a point to your spinning? If you think the decision supports your position, try to explain why.

[tpaine]

Another erroneous states 'rights' opinion, written in the KKK era. It is not the law. - And,- it is directly contradicted by the Preamble to the BOR's.

Our constitution is the "law of the land". - Case closed.

[Roscoe]

Another erroneous states 'rights' opinion

No cite to or quote from any decision or authority to the contrary, naturally. Begging the question, always.

[Roscoe]

While we're waiting:

"This line of cases establishes the general proposition that a juror may not be challenged for cause based on his views about capital punishment unless those views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath. The State may insist however, that jurors will consider and decide the facts impartially and conscientiously apply the law as charged by the court." -- Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (1980)

[savedbygrace]

Read the decision and explain how it supports your broad brush claim. Remember, this was YOUR source, not mine. If you can't find the part of the USSC decision that supports your decision, then just say so.

Dodging is YOUR thing, Roscoe, not mine.

[tpaine]

Jurors who would nullify the law had no right to be on the jury.
-roscoe- totally confused again

How could a juror know that s/he would nullify before hearing the facts & law specific to the case?
-tpaine-


The potential jurors were asked about their ability to apply a capital punishment law. Try to keep up.
-roscoe- spins again

Immaterial to ~our~ issue. You can answer yes to capital punishment, and still nullify based on the facts & law of the case, as presented.
-- Try to show some logic, roscoe.

[Roscoe]

"This line of cases establishes the general proposition that a juror may not be challenged for cause based on his views about capital punishment unless those views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath. The State may insist however, that jurors will consider and decide the facts impartially and conscientiously apply the law as charged by the court." -- Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (1980)

[tpaine]

Another erroneous states 'rights' opinion, written in the KKK era. It is not the law. - And,- it is directly contradicted by the Preamble to the BOR's.
Our constitution is the "law of the land". - Case closed.
392 tpaine

No cite to or quote from any decision or authority to the contrary, naturally.
393 -roscoe- Begging the question, always.


The 'authority' of the Preamble was cited, & the constitution quoted, just above.

[You really are becoming feeble minded roscoe. Or demented.]

[Roscoe]

Potential jurors who expressed an unwillingness during voir dire to follow the law could be excluded from service. They had no "right" to be on the jury.

[tpaine]

Nitpicking