Posted on 05/25/2006 8:53:27 AM PDT by biographie
Just signed up for free republic. I have been reading for a while, and this topic has finally made me want to step into the ring.
I saw back at the end of Moussaoui's death sentencing trail that it seemed that many posters were enraged that we had one hold out. Didn't that person use the jury nullification playbook to a T? Isn't that what they usually tell people to do? Why would people here be so enraged by such action? Isn't jury nullification the last grasp of control the common person has on saying if a law is good or bad?
I ask because I just printed out some info and history for my girlfriend's father about jury nullification. He didn't know anything about it. The easiest way I could explain it to him was about concealed carry. We both own weapons, but I will not get my conceal permit. I prefer open carry (thank the Lord for the southwestern states). I do not agree with the requirement of a permit. People should be able to carry period open or concealed. So because I think the law requiring a permit is against our God given right to protect ourselves (never mind the constitution), I would never find a person guilty of carrying a concealed weapon, or other trumped-up charges (disorderly conduct, etc.) they try bring on a person. I would simply agree with everyone and continue to vote not guilty. I don't feel I would have the luxury of time to sit there (eventually I do have to get back to real work), and try to change everyone's mind about insanity of gun laws.
Now that I have been totally long-winded, he understood where I was coming from. And I could see the gears turning in him. I know that we don't see eye to eye on everything, but my main point to him was that if you do not agree with a law, it can stop with you.
How do users of Free Republic feel about jury nullification? Because I am getting the impression that many feel that only a majority is needed for a conviction which is a democracy or mob rule. That doesn’t exactly seem like the principals of a republic to me.
*************
Really? Who?
Weclome to FR!
.....that would be Welcome. (Darn fat fingers)
Assuming you were truthful, I would dismiss you from the jury.
If you were untruthful and I found out about it later - I think perjury charges would be in order.
I am not saying one way or the other. I am trying to be objective. We have no idea who that person was, or what their background and level of knowledge of the law is. All I am saying is that it appeared to be a pure jury nullification play.
On the other hand, I am quite amazed that whoever it was, that they were able to keep their wits about them to hold out for as long as they did, and keep everyone in the room completely in the dark. You would think that most people would crack and show some suggestion of who is voting against under the pressure of such a case.
I think the rap would be "jury misconduct" or some such.
What the Moussaoui trial juror did was Alinskyite -- anything, just anything, to screw up the process and secure a tactical victory over the majority. That juror didn't play fair with the other jurors.
By the same token, it's a bit dicey allowing prosecutors to strike jurors for being "prejudiced" -- oh, so you believe in jury trials and the Bill of Rights, do you? Off you go, you won't be on this jury!
The article writer's point about the jury box being a check on government is essentially correct. The jury box, the polling place, and the Militia (the People in arms) are three institutions formed for the precise purpose of ensuring that everything that is done, is done with the consent of the People. Theoretically, if the Militia refuses orders to fire on their neighbors, they can't be punished for "mutiny" or failure to follow orders, because what they have done is actually to exercise their People's right of nullification, to deny the Executive the power to force the People to obey a law they consider abhorrent. They have, in that theoretical case (as in jury nullification), exercised their right to be free of domination by a minoritarian elite. (Read: lawyers.)
OTOH, the single person who flouts the will of the mass of jurors is more problematical, in that he impedes the will of the People empaneled as a petit jury.
To oppose the death penalty is one thing. Not to let the other people know where you are coming from so they can't argue with you, is a power-play.
Well, I guess I would lie and risk perjury mainly because the idea of getting a jury of common citizens that have been weeded out doesn't sound very 'common' to me. More like the lawyers are looking for constituents with opinions that align close to their own. Yeah, that seems fair (not).
IMHO, the common part comes with what SHOULD be a random process of mailing jury summonses. That randomness of getting citizens to be on a jury should be good enough. Once lawyers are allowed to question and dismiss jurors, the randomness and commonality you gain though basic averaging is gone.
Isn’t it just a question of scaling? The congress and president pass a law saying one thing; a jury of 12 people, that are acting as one unit, find it stupid so they all say not guilty. This basically trumps any past cases and juries that said otherwise. Scale it down at this point, 12 people in a room discussing a person's guilt of breaking a law, 11 people say a law is fine, but one person says it stinks, so the one votes not guilty.
Everything in life is a power play of some type. The lying comes in when people start saying that it isn't.
The prosecutor can ask the Judge to dismiss anyone for cause, and must convince the judge of his cause.
The defense attorney can do the same.
Both have the same number (6 in California) of premptory challenges. No explanation is necessary.
The intent is to trim back the tails on the normal distribution, so the Jury is really representative of the population.
If the prospective jury member doesn't tell the truth, the system doesn't work. When the juror doesn't explain his reasons to the other jurors, he removes logic, evidence, and morality from the decision.
Jury nullification is a good thing. Juror nullification is not.
When the Jury, as a group, and as empaneled representative of the people decides not to enforce the law, there is some reason to look as the law as flawed.
When a single juror decides to hold the law hostage to his unexplained whim, it stinks of jury tampering.
Your mileage may differ.
The prosecutor can ask the Judge to dismiss anyone for cause, and must convince the judge of his cause.
The defense attorney can do the same.
Both have the same number (6 in California) of premptory challenges. No explanation is necessary.
The intent is to trim back the tails on the normal distribution, so the Jury is really representative of the population.
If the prospective jury member doesn't tell the truth, the system doesn't work. When the juror doesn't explain his reasons to the other jurors, he removes logic, evidence, and morality from the decision.
Jury nullification is a good thing. Juror nullification is not.
When the Jury, as a group, and as empaneled representative of the people decides not to enforce the law, there is some reason to look as the law as flawed.
When a single juror decides to hold the law hostage to his unexplained whim, it stinks of jury tampering.
Your mileage may differ.
Let us see here. You seem not to understand the difference between conviction and sentencing.
Why do you think that is?
Are you just ignorant of the difference or are you spinning like a top?
"The intent is to trim back the tails on the normal distribution, so the Jury is really representative of the population."
Sounds great in theory, but its application seems awful.
The problem with this talk about jury vs. juror nullification is the reality staring me in the face. From the things that I have been reading, the courts do not want the jurors to know what jury nullification is, and that the jury cannot judge if a law is sound or not. If it is determined that a juror is trying to argue the validity of a law, the judge will replace that juror with a standby. The courts do not want this happening, so IMHO it forces the individual to keep their mouth shut, and not let it be known that you have issues with the law in question.
So what exactly do you want an knowledgeable juror to do? You are not exactly giving them many options? Once they are out, they are out. You can't exactly say you are sorry, walk back into the deliberations, and try to argue from a different point of view.
Again, all this sounds great in theory, but applying it under the circumstances would appear almost impossible without lying somewhere along the way.
"Are you just ignorant of the difference or are you spinning like a top?"
I will yell ignorant from the top of my lungs. I never claimed to an expert. Quite honestly, most of these 'laws' we have seem more like theories. But it probably has more to do with me being an engineer, and not being so emotionally attached to these theories as most people are. The differences between conviction and sentencing seems like splitting hairs. I would think that they would work on the same premise, or they are trying to make the system more complicated than it has to be.
I think you have to be honest. I think you have to trust the people. I also think that Jury nullification is only justified if most of the people agree that it is a bad law.
If a few jurors are removed for views that are prevalent in the population, then you may have a case that lying may be necessary. It is not a perfect system, but better than any other I can think of.
Really, is that what a prosecutor is sworn to do? -- I thought they took an oath to support & defend the Constitution as the supreme law..
Seems to me the 2nd is pretty clear on 'infringements'. Why should a prosecutor get a bye on supporting the RKBA's?
Isn't jury nullification the last grasp of control the common person has on saying if a law is good or bad?
That IS NOT a juror's duty, my friend.
Stick around! You might learn something.
Et tu, Johnnie Cochran?
In our great nation, we citizens have the means to change laws that, for lack of a better, don't pass the stink test. These changes don't happen overnight, nor should they. Laws are seldom birthed overnight; why should reversal be any easier? Jury nullification allows a few individuals--even just one--to set themselves above the rest of us. That is not the duty of a juror.
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.