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.)
Which explains your positions. And yes it is irrelevant, I was merely curious.
It is very rare that a jury will nullify a verdict due to sentencing.
It is very rare that a prosecuter will bring a case to jury if they know that people are more likely to nullify. They plea bargain or change the charge. OJ death penalty prosecution decision was based on the fear of nullification.
Thopse are pactices that can never be fixed,
Nor should they be in my opinion.
I almost certainly wouldn't convict a family member of the dead innocent person adjusting the scales of justice themselves. I am at present involved in research into one fairly well-known example of just that, soon to be a motion picture remake, I expect.
The point is, is he being convicted of a real criminal offense under a constitutional law, did he/she really do it, and in the manner described by the prosecution, beyond the reasonable possibilities of a reasonable doubt.
If charges of *witchcraft* are brought just as an excuse to *get the criminal off the street* or to eliminate a societal pest, do you go along with the game? We TRY to do better than the German courts of 1933-1945 that found Jews to be *criminals* and executed them, or at least I do.
-archy-/-
Perhaps we give another example a man shoots a burgalar in his home and is prosecuted for having an unregistered gun in his home. He has recently moved to the state and already filed his paperwork for registration but it has not come back. He is charged with possessing an unliscensed handgun and facing jail. He has no criminal record and is an honorably discharged vetran. Does this give you a different view of jury nullification. I do not like it but it does have its uses within the republic and clearly it is one of the protections of citizens.
So that guy in New York who shot the intruder in his home, who is facing jail time for acting in self-defense - if you were on the jury, would you vote to convict under New York law?
Interesting. The only places where I've served as a juror were in Indiana and Georgia. I wasn't aware that the process was particularly different elsewhere, though each state has atleast slightly differing procedures, of course. But I reckon I could be a real serious headache for a court here in Tennessee or Mississippi.
-archy-/-
If the state passes a law against witchcraft, it's an indictment on the state, not the individual. Why would anyone live in a state where people were arrested for witchcraft (or having an "illegal" gun). Why don't you use one a bit closer to reality like Blue Laws? Many of the Blue Laws were eliminated because people were found guilty and the higher courts overturned the laws.
I have served on a jury before and was amazed at the process. I thought it was a great educational experience as it offered me the chance to take part in our justice system.
I was a bit disgusted with what I witnessed in the voir dire process. Potential jurors were dismissed by the dozens (or so it seemed), not because they did not have potential to do their duty, but because they weaseled out of serving. Some of the excuses they used were not even believable!
We did manage to have one member on our jury who voted according to his own agenda, rather than with the overwhelming evidence placed before us against the defendant. Our foreman basically let everyone know that we were not going to be going anywhere until we all voted together, and after about 30 minutes and another review of the evidence, we finally got a unanimous vote.
Some people are not interested in justice. They just want to work the system to progress their own agenda.
Per US Supreme court:
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.
Marbury vs, Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
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.
There was a famous case in Colorado a few years ago of a woman who mentioned to another jury member that she could vote any way that she wanted, and she was charged and convicted(she herself was denied a jury trial).
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
(Chief Justice John Jay, U.S. Supreme Court Georgia v Brailsford (3 Dallas 1, 1794))
I hope that's a comforting thought for you as the bailiff hauls you out to the stake where the piled kindling awaits where you'll be burned alive, as the prosecutor watches on and grins. Maybe someday they'll change things, but it'll be too late for you, you filthy witch.
The real indictment of the state is that where such systems of law are unjust or rigged, pretty soon the citizenry loses any real interest in any exhibition of wholesale support of it, like having their sons die in wars to protect it. It took a dozen years for Nazism to fall to its enemies for that reason, nearly 7 decades for Soviet Communism. So far, we've lasted almost two and a half centuries, but the cracks are beginning to show, aren't they?
-archy-/-
The process, or the act of acknowledging or not acknowledging, makes no difference to the nullification reality.
However, usually the attorneys are good at picking though jurors. Sometimes their not. Which allowed me onto a jury, even though I had graduated from law school and taken the bar, knew friends in the Public Defender's office, had done three months of probono work with Federal Defenders.
You can never tell. But it's up to you and how comfortable you are with the situation you will put yourself in. As long as you truthfully answer any question put to you during voir dire, no hassles. I wouldn't suggest misleading folks just to try to nullify, though.
If you are looking for an opportunity to nullify a prosecution, unless you are prepared to lie under oath in voir dire you likely will not make it onto the jury panel.
This statement in and of itself is incorrect. Any one juror could cause a mistrial all by themself. And that is nullification.
I would never hesitate to do so if my concience led me to do so.
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.