[trisham]

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.

*************

Really? Who?

[b4its2late]

Weclome to FR!

[b4its2late]

.....that would be Welcome. (Darn fat fingers)

[Gay State Conservative]

You're not gonna make many friends here suggesting that the holdout(s) was/were brave and principled rather than weak fools...or worse.

[Army MP Retired]

hmmmm.... well, if you were a prospective juror and I were the prosecutor, I would do my damnedest to vet you out as being prejudiced. That's what is supposed to happen during jury selection. Under oath I would ask you: What are your views on carrying concealed weapons?... Do you own a handgun?... What do you think the right to keep and bear arms means?...

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.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Because I am getting the impression that many feel that only a majority is needed for a conviction...

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?

[grellis]

In case you haven't been banned yet...

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.

[David Allen]

I disagree that it was "jury nullification."

That happens when they, for example, let some woman off from a manslaughter or murder charge, even though she clearly killed him.

You're talking about the problem of unanimous verdicts, which is not a constitutional right. The unanimous verdict allows one person to hold out, and that's always been the case. It's not jury nullification. It's one juror saying they wouldn't agree to death as the sentence.

As for Jury Nullification, it all depends on the case and the facts.

[sit-rep]

Currently, I am flipping a coin whether to take my case to trial, or, take a plea that would make me guilty of something I am not guilty of...

I was driving my wife's car. In the glove box was a can of mace her father gave her 23 years ago, when she was 17. That mace was there when we dated in '86, and it was in her next car in 93...we got married in '93, and it has been in four cars since.

I got pulled over a couple months ago, and a cop wanted to search my car...I'm 42, and I did not think I had anything to hide...I let him(I know, I know...) He came back with the mace, and the size container(105gram), was over Michigan's legal limit of 35 grams. This equates to a 5yr Felony.

There are no misdemeanors to plea this down to. The only ones that we(my lawyer and DA) can come up with are "Attempt" which is a one year Misdemeanor, and naturally, I would get it reduced to probation. But, I will be recorded on "Habitual Offenders" list which will be a strike one out of three...then I go for life.

The only other, is "Selling mace to a Minor"... a six month Misdemeanor, possible probation on this one...

My only other choice is taking it to trial, and hoping for jury nullification....If this happens, GREAT!! If it does not, then I'm up a creek....

Jury nullification in my case is okay, and requested!!...but in the case of Mossoul, it gives it a bad name....