[knarf]

A juror had been caught communicating with the defendent and during the questioning, the juror (ultimately kicked from the jury), made the comment that she would try to annull the law using juror annullment.

The judge flared back with a couple of her own lines, one especially being that juror annullment was illegal.

The setting for Law and Order is NYC, so my question is;

Is it true juror annullment is illegal?
Is it something peculiar to NY(C)?
Was the statement just another lie to eminate from the tube?

[thoughtomator]

Unless the law's been changed, or the FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association) has been putting out bad info, jury annulment is still legal.

[ahayes]

I guess you mean jury nullification. That's when the jury believes that a person is guilty of breaking a certain law, but votes innocent because they believe the law is unjust. Just saying because some people think the O. J. Simpson trial was jury nullification. Not unless the jury thought murder was just duckie. . .

It is not illegal, although some people would like you to think so.

[backhoe]

American Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association: Home

A non-profit educational association whose mission is to inform all Americans about their rights, powers and responsibilties when serving as trial jurors.
www.fija.org/ - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

[agitator]

Lawyer shows on tv should be illegal

[Mr. Lucky]

A jury finding of not guilty, for whatever reason, is not subject to appeal.

[ScreamingFist]

The judge flared back with a couple of her own lines, one especially being that juror annullment was illegal.

Tell the judge at your next trail that it is your duty as a juror to not only determine if the defendent is guilty or innocent but also to to determine if the law is fair and just. Watch the judge turn into the Tasmanian Devil, trust me, I know.

[Cincinnatus]

jury nullification technically is NOT legal, in that it violates the specific instructions of the court with respect to following the applicable law. HOWEVER, once a person is acquitted, that's it. The jurors have not committed a crime, but they HAVE violated their oath as jurors (in New York anyway) wherein they agree to follow the judge's instructions on the law. A distinction without a difference, perhaps, as the jurors can never be called to answer for their verdict, and any evidence of nullification is anecdotal rather than testimonial.
-A Judge Who Knows

[MamaTexan]

SAMUEL CHASE (Justice, U. S. Supreme Court and signer of the Declaration of Independence; in 1804): "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."

U.S. v. DOUGHERTY, 473 F.2d. 1113, 1139 (1972): "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge...."

LORD DENMAN, (in C.J. O'Connel v. R. ,1884): "Every jury in the land is tampered with and falsely instructed by the judge when it is told it must take (or accept) as the law that which has been given to them, or that they must bring in a certain verdict, or that they can decide only the facts of the case."

[Still Thinking]

Since the purpose of jury nullification is the prevention of the enforcement of laws with which a jury doesn't agree, who cares if it's "illegal" or not?

[Rightly Biased]

Watching CRAP on TV should be illegal

[muir_redwoods]

It's perfectly legal but judges and lawyers hate it. It takes control away from the courts and gives it to the jury where, historically, it has always belonged.

Remember, judges issue instructions not orders