Posted on 05/24/2017 8:18:14 AM PDT by knarf
Suppose you're on a jury, and you don't think the law being used to try a person is a correct law AS a law ... what do you say?
Yeah, I know, and I’m in the trenches having as much fun as Rush is than we should be allowed.
Talking just jury duty here: “Not guilty” is all that is required.
If anyone asks “why”, it’s none of their business. I would be careful and NOT explain my thinking. It may tick them off, but that’s tough.
Sorry.
I got confused by the part where he says:
“Suppose you’re on a jury, and you don’t think the law being used to try a person is a correct law AS a law ... what do you say?”
My bad.
+1, that’s all you need to or should say. Anything else and you’ll probably trigger a mistrial. Not even to your fellow jurors. Those that know ... will know.
I used those words to get the thought pattern established .... it'd come out soon enough.
If you say one word about “nullification”, or disagreeing with the law, the judge can yank you off the jury, replace you with an alternate juror, and perhaps impose sanctions upon you.
Just say nothing about your reasoning, and instead just say “The prosecution has not proved their case to my satisfaction. Not guilty”
+1 back at ya!
You really CAN say too much, as trump is learning. ;-)
or subclass to IsNullable if for .Net then set = null..
That’s okay
I think tjis FReeper is confused about what his responsibilities really are
Good Question. I sat on a civil jury in Crook County, IL where the instructions from the judge were that if we found any part of the argument of the plaintiff to be true, then we had to conclude that the entire case of the plaintiff was true and award damages accordingly.
The plaintiffs lawyer was a high profile, high campaign donor billionaire off his ambulance chasing.
The plaintiff was due money from the defendant for one emergency room visit. But in the emergency room visit and multiple hospital visits thereafter, eg delivery of a healthy baby no injury was ever found. Then, over 2 years later she goes to this lawyer and then to a chiropractor after going to the lawyer and suddenly the defendant is charged with injuries unknown to her but discovered by the chiropractor over 2 years later.
I was inclined to argue nullification. But in sizing up my fellow jurors I realized I did not have the oratorical skills to convince them. Half were smart enough to understand such a presentation. But half of my fellow jurors had no clue what a Constitution or a law was. To them a “law” was what the police or judge told you to do.
Three jurors thought it was their duty to decide that the plaintiff had hit the lottery and should be awarded millions. The had no idea how that would benefit the plaintiff when the defendant only made $15/hr on his job.
I worked with the reasonable members of the jury and awarded a token amount for ALL the injuries. But wink-wink we all knew it was for the one emergency room visit for which he was in fact liable.
The plaintiff attorney was outraged that we awarded a small amount so much lower than his fee and that we essentially pushed him into working pro bono as his client had no money to pay his fee and he had told her he would just take it out of the settlement.
Later I discovered that the judge was in fact quoting Illinois law and doing what he was mandated to do by law.
You are a board member. You are supposed to do your job. If policy is bad...you can use your skills to get it changed
I won't explain that, just take my word for it and I suspect (Nothing has happened yet, it all goes down tomorrow night) the student is unusually aware he has rights and is exercising them before the board.
The knife / knapsack event is real and I used it to promote the thinking and conversation here.
If it’s a court of law, you are there to judge on the evidence, not the rectitude of the law. You’re a juror, not a legislator.
Or at least that’s the official line.
sudo that
Not guilty.
Period.
Yes, that is the official line, and due to the reasons listed above, I will never get my jury vote nullified by declaring for nullification (either inside or outside the jury room). However, I will ALWAYS vote such that my sense of justice is fulfilled. That is what I owe to both the defendant and the Constitution. I see any other action as cowardly.
I understand.
Your option at this point is to vote not guilty. Don’t bother to explain folks like that will turn it into a recall circus.
You have your work cut out for you. Best of luck
Not guilty! Shut up about all else.
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.