First of all, dearest sister in Christ, thank you from my heart for the passages from 2 Timothy 3:1-5. Nothing could be more apt to what we're discussing here....
WRT the above italics: Oh, you are so right that the very idea of jury nullification gives judges the "heebie-jeebies!" LOLOL! I infer this from my experience as a prospective juror in federal district court (a Massachusetts district).
I got called to service, and accordingly showed up at the appointed time (7:30 a.m.). I was put into a room called the "jury pool." There were a whole bunch of us milling around, but eventually we all settled down at tables and chairs and opened our books, etc., to while away the time.
Two things happened next. First, we were shown a film designed to guide us into a proper understanding of our responsibilities as jurors. The basic theme boiled down to: You are bound to render your verdict solely on the basis of the guidance and instructions of the trial judge. Especially, you must rely on his interpretation of the law; and if he says that the law applies to the defendant, then you must cast your verdict in such a way as to apply the law as the judge instructs you to do.
Well, I was just flabbergasted! For I know (being a lifelong student of the Constitution) that the central tenet of the jury system is that jurors are sovereign; that is, wholly free to interpret law according to their own best lights, as an act of conscience. And then to determine whether or not the law should apply to a particular defendant in a particular case. Juries can hold the law of "no effect" WRT that particular defendant. That doesn't mean that the law changes instantly. It just means that the jury refuses to apply it in the case at hand. This is the juror's RIGHT — of free conscience. And as mentioned before, that right, and that verdict, cannot be questioned, or overturned, by ANYONE.
Natch I would never spill the fact that I understand what jury nullification is if I ever wanted to be empanelled as a juror.... But if I wanted to ditch jury duty, the most expeditious way to do that would be to suggest that my understanding of the role of the juror is the "classical, constitutional one." Today, anyone saying such a thing would get dismissed for sure, I guarantee it. :^)
But then stay tuned for part (2): The presiding judge of the court that our jury pool presumably would be serving that day came out to address us.
He said in effect: "Not to worry people, you'll be out of here early today because we are going with a plea-bargaining strategy for today's docket, so you'll probably not be called as jurors. The whole point of your being here today is as leverage over defendants to plea bargain their cases. If they don't do that, then we threaten them with a jury. Oftentimes, that's all we need to do to get them to settle. Hey, it saves on court time and expense."
At this point, I was sickened, totally disgusted.... Every American is entitled to a full and fair jury trial. And this court has twisted, reduced this right to nothing more than an expeditious route for obtaining a guilty plea....
Anyhoot, sure enuf the judge was right; and the entire jury pool was dismissed at 12:30 p.m. Evidently this judge's court got all their plea-bargaining business done that day....
Sigh....
I agree with you here: "If the Constitution ever needs to be reset, it'll be because a "Hitler" type came to power." Maybe this is the role that the Obamessiah has been chosen to fill in the upcoming festivities....
It's a very good thing I can't foretell the future. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night! LOL!!!
Meanwhile, let us pray for God's blessings on America, for a spiritual awakening, a moral regeneration....
All glory be to God, my dearest sister in Him!
RE: the film we prospective jurors were shown, I neglected to cite the final, very explicit "moral of the story" of the jury instructions given to us: "Your job as jurors is not to interpret the law; your job is only to apply the law (as the judge explains it to you)."
This is NOT the "classical, constitutional understanding" of the role of the juror in our society.
It is amazing that jurors are intimidated into thinking a particular way when the bottom line is that their thoughts are known only to themselves and their decisions, however made, stand.
Intimidation towards plea bargaining didn't surprise me at all - criminal justice in particular is almost a machine. Indeed, I suspect many prosecutors throw every charge they can into the indictment so they will have the upper hand in plea bargaining.
The old saying in Texas is that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. An attorney once explained that if the grand jury asked too many questions of the prosecutors, they'd keep them locked up - forcing them to order in ham sandwiches or whatever until they finally agreed to rubber stamp their charges. LOLOL!