Posted on 05/24/2017 8:18:14 AM PDT by knarf
Every adjudication we approve has always been on the agenda as "Parents and student have agreed to .... " etc., " but this time apparently someone is questioning the offense.
IMO, our school has too many oppressive policies and it MAY be the policy the student is questioning (as well as the charge ?) ... I don't know.
But if the charge is being questioned because of an intrusive or (imo) bad policy .... I'm being asked to give a guilty/not guilty response and I may not agree to the policy.
What words do I use when the vote comes around to me ... or if it is anonymous ?
“Not Guilty”.
What Mr. Douglas said. “Not guilty” is all you need to say.
...oh...thought you were talking about computer tables...
...nevermind...
I’ve been in the jury on two complex cases. When we went to deliberation I told the Jury that we don’t have to individually explain our verdict. We only have to make our individual vote and maybe be asked if it is our vote.
They are not allowed to “judge” the thought process that led to your personal decision. It means you can find vote “guilty” in a rape case because the defendent stole your lunch money 30 years ago and nobody can ask you why you voted “guilty”.
It also means that if you think a law is stupid, you can vote not guilty regarding anyone accused of breaking that law, even if the evidence against them is overwhelming.
You are never asked or required to defend your decision. You are only required to make one.
Courts run afoul of the constitution on purpose, and are slaves to the law, when the law suits them. They are as much control-freaks as are the legislators who pass unjust legislation.
The policy is what it is. When confronted with a case, just refuse to convict. Individual cases are not the plce to policy advocate. See prohibition.
If it becomes known that your "not guilty" is based on rejecting the law, the adjudicator will declare mistrial, and the perp gets to go through the ordeal again.
rm -rf /
Rather than a simple “not guilty” I would point out the purpose of having the school board vote on the issue. There are two questions: the question of fact and the question of policy. If you dispute the conclusion of fact, you vote “not guilty” and explain why you are not convinced of the allegations. If you disagree with the policy/law, I would lean toward stipulating the facts but arguing that the policy does not serve appropriate educational interests/priorities in this particular case.
If you want the policy itself changed, argue that question separately and later. Limit the discussion to the case at hand for now.
The one thing you don’t do is mention nullification. As others have said you vote not guilty.
You mean lie?
Well, try saying that you simply don’t believe the witnesses for the side you don’t like. As a juror you are to evaluate the testimony, so lie and say you evaluated the testimony and found the case presented by the side you favor more convincing. Or at the very least, that you were not convinced by the other side’s case.
We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty.
I'm trying to pre-empt my knowledge here.
What if the kid says yeah, he DID have a pocket knife in school, but it was in his knapsack, in his locker and discovered during a "random" search ... which is legal in Pennsylvania ?
The possession may be the violation, but the manner in which it was possessed and discovered is .. imo .. a lousy way to hook a kid into having some kind of punishment foisted upom him.
I would want the possession charge dropped BECAUSE of the manner in which it was learned.
Do I use the words "not guilty" with a great big long explanation (which would mean nothing as far as my wishes to nullify are concerned) or are there other, more legal words that a "juror" uses ?
Except that you are likely to receive an instruction like this one [Model]:
3.1 DUTY TO DELIBERATE
Before you begin your deliberations, elect one member of the jury as your presiding juror. The presiding juror will preside over the deliberations and serve as the spokesperson for the jury in court.
You shall diligently strive to reach agreement with all of the other jurors if you can do so. Your verdict must be unanimous.
Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but you should do so only after you have considered all of the evidence, discussed it fully with the other jurors, and listened to their views.
It is important that you attempt to reach a unanimous verdict but, of course, only if each of you can do so after having made your own conscientious decision. Do not be unwilling to change your opinion if the discussion persuades you that you should. But do not come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is right, or change an honest belief about the weight and effect of the evidence simply to reach a verdict.
Or this one
California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)
5009. Predeliberation Instructions
When you go to the jury room, the first thing you should do is choose a presiding juror. The presiding juror should see to it that your discussions are orderly and that everyone has a fair chance to be heard.
It is your duty to talk with one another in the jury room and to consider the views of all the jurors. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after you have considered the evidence with the other members of the jury. Feel free to change your mind if you are convinced that your position should be different. You should all try to agree. But do not give up your honest beliefs just because the others think differently.
Please do not state your opinions too strongly at the beginning of your deliberations. Also, do not immediately announce how you plan to vote. Keep an open mind so that you and your fellow jurors can easily share ideas about the case.
You should use your common sense, but do not use or consider any special training or unique personal experience that any of you have in matters involved in this case. Such training or experience is not a part of the evidence received in this case.
Sometimes jurors disagree or have questions about the evidence or about what the witnesses said in their testimony. If that happens, you may ask to have testimony read back to you or ask to see any exhibits admitted into evidence that have not already been provided to you. Also, jurors may need further explanation about the laws that apply to the case. If this happens during your discussions, write down your questions and give them to the clerk or bailiff. I will do my best to answer them. When you write me a note, do not tell me how you voted on an issue until I ask for this information in open court.
[At least nine jurors must agree on each verdict and on each question that you are asked to answer. However, the same jurors do not have to agree on each verdict or each question. Any nine jurors is sufficient. As soon as you have agreed on a verdict and answered all the questions as instructed, the presiding juror must date and sign the form(s) and notify the clerk or the bailiff.]
Your decision must be based on your personal evaluation of the evidence presented in the case. Each of you may be asked in open court how you voted on each question.
While I know you would not do this, I am required to advise you that you must not base your decision on chance, such as a flip of a coin. If you decide to award damages, you may not agree in advance to simply add up the amounts each juror thinks is right and then make the average your verdict.
You may take breaks, but do not discuss this case with anyone, including each other, until all of you are back in the jury room.
I don’t try to nullify but around here my biggest smear word is south basher or hater
Tossing out racist or anti Semite or bigot or homophobe or sexist to thwart argument is the province of low intellect low character pussies
Almost always
People like reporters
I should have read the vanity
It was not conversational nullification
Sorry
Knarf
School boards are always more lib than the populace
A given
That’s nice
He is talking about a school board vote
No problem wardaddy ... I’m getting some good insight through this thread.
“Not Guilty because the policy is flawed.”
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.