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 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-452 next last
To: tpaine
The 'authority' of the Preamble was cited

Question begging. It says nothing to support your position, which is why you didn't quote it.

401 posted on 03/13/2003 10:41:20 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Nitpicking

Wrong again. For example, in California potential jurors are usually required by the judge to take an oath to follow his instructions and to apply the law as charged.

402 posted on 03/13/2003 10:45:24 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
"The 'authority' of the Preamble was cited."

It says nothing to support your position, which is why you didn't quote it.
-roscoe- begging for help


Read it yourself, you lazy clown. - Bet you never have.
403 posted on 03/13/2003 10:56:15 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Ever sourceless.
404 posted on 03/13/2003 11:00:57 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
"Nitpicking"

Wrong. For example, in California potential jurors are usually required by the judge to take an oath to follow his instructions and to apply the law as charged.
-roscoe- applauding socialism, again.


So what? All rational people know that CA is a socialist state, where ALL officials [elected by roscoe clones] ignore our Constitution.
405 posted on 03/13/2003 11:02:24 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
[For example, in California potential jurors are usually required by the judge to take an oath to follow his instructions and to apply the law as charged.]

So what?

Challenge it in federal court. That should be good for a laugh.

406 posted on 03/13/2003 11:08:50 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
That is pulled out of context. The decision was narrow, as Jusrtice White wrote:

We granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, 444 U.S. 990 (1979), limited to the following questions:

"(1) Is the doctrine of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , applicable to the bifurcated procedure employed by Texas in capital cases? (2) If so, did the exclusion from jury service in the present case of prospective jurors pursuant to Texas Penal Code 12.31 (b) violate the doctrine of Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra?" 2

Also, the decision was written like this:

We repeat that the State may bar from jury service those whose beliefs about capital punishment would lead them to ignore the law or violate their oaths. But in the present case Texas has applied 12.31 (b) to exclude jurors whose only fault was to take their responsibilities with special seriousness or to acknowledge honestly that they might or might not [448 U.S. 38, 51] be affected. It does not appear in the record before us that these individuals were so irrevocably opposed to capital punishment as to frustrate the State's legitimate efforts to administer its constitutionally valid death penalty scheme. Accordingly, the Constitution disentitles the State to execute a sentence of death imposed by a jury from which such prospective jurors have been excluded.

The judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is consequently reversed to the extent that it sustains the imposition of the death penalty.

IOW, very narrow, not broad.

407 posted on 03/13/2003 11:08:55 AM PST by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
Look at your own quote from the decision.

We repeat that the State may bar from jury service those whose beliefs about capital punishment would lead them to ignore the law or violate their oaths.

The state may bar jurors who would nullify laws.

To continue with your quote:

But, in the present case, Texas has applied §12.31(b) to exclude jurors whose only fault was to take their responsibilities with special seriousness or to acknowledge honestly that they might or might not [448 U.S. 51] be affected.

"Special seriousness" isn't jury nullification and your quote offers zero support for your position.

408 posted on 03/13/2003 11:24:52 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

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

You err in assuming at least a modicum of integrity and honesty. If at first glance it appears to support the status quo it's useful and can be taken out of context no mater how deceptive or dishonest. A blatant and obvious modus operandi, I might add. Ever time a person does it they further discredit themselves. You're responding to, and I'm referring to, the very bottom of the barrel.

409 posted on 03/13/2003 11:32:11 AM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Rosecoe, you don't understand the distinction between narrow and broad. You've become boring and I've lost interest in this discussion. Go ahead and post some real zinger and I'll ignore it. Then you can feel good about yourself, which don't make me no never mind, as they say.
410 posted on 03/13/2003 11:32:58 AM PST by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
True, the fed officals ignore our constitution even more than CA.

Which branch of the offical bueaucracy do you work in roscoe?
411 posted on 03/13/2003 11:33:37 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Zon
Thank you. I've never debated Roscoe before, so I had no idea what he was like. Now I know to ignore him.
412 posted on 03/13/2003 11:34:21 AM PST by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
Rosecoe, you don't understand the distinction between narrow and broad.

I can see the difference between a distinction and a distraction. You can't refute the decision, so you're trying to stick a tag on it.

Individuals who would engage in nullification of the law have no "right" to be jurors and may be excluded from service, no matter how you try to avoid addressing that point.

413 posted on 03/13/2003 11:40:24 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
fed officals ignore our constitution

Still begging.

414 posted on 03/13/2003 11:41:13 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: Zon
Sore loser syndrome.
415 posted on 03/13/2003 11:43:18 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
I ask my self why people that are such obvious losers are allowed to remain on FreeRepublic. It is a private forum after all. Open to the public at the owner's discretion.

There's a few possibilities.

1. To enhance people's view of themselves in juxtaposition to such obvious losers.

2. Some of the libertarian concepts and ideas are so compelling that there needs to be an opposing side and even the obvious losers provide that service. That speaks more about the lack of value in the other political parties than the losers themselves. I mean, if there's an imbalance that requires keeping even the most obvious losers on board perhaps the balance that's being sought is out of kilter. Harboring obvious losers is not conducive to attaining the best -- it hinders it.

416 posted on 03/13/2003 11:48:34 AM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
You say my statement of fact, that "fed officals ignore our constitution" is still begging some question?

How daft roscoe. - What question?
You've gone completely round the bend. What an idiotic retort.

417 posted on 03/13/2003 11:51:50 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: Zon
Some of the libertarian concepts and ideas are so compelling

That they consistently fail in the marketplace of ideas and draw less than one percent of the vote.

418 posted on 03/13/2003 11:53:32 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
You say my statement of fact

Frivolous lawsuits fail in federal court because they are without merit.

419 posted on 03/13/2003 11:55:23 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Lawsuits arguing non-compliance to the constitution fail in fed courts because the courts themselves ignore & pettifog the constitution. - Catch 22.
420 posted on 03/13/2003 12:39:31 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-452 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