Posted on 05/18/2009 9:41:14 AM PDT by fightinbluhen51
Ping
Bump
Not if SCOTUS says they can’t!
I was in the jury pool in Santa Monica and there were two people who were let go almost immediately- they had FIJA pamphlets in their shirt pockets. FIJA is a big advocate of nullification.
(Fully Informed Jury Association).
Jury Nullification is the entire reason we have Jury’s. Its the last check on the legal system. A person can be completely in violation of the letter of the law, and still be consciously set free. This is the check valve to prevent the letter of the law from trumping the spirit of the law.
For example, if I were on a jury for a parent who in cold blood executed the person who abused their child, I would never in a million years convict this person for their actions. Did they violate the letter of the law? Absolutely. Did they act in a way that I believe most sane and rational parents would not act in the same situation? Absolutely. I will not send a parent to jail for protecting their child and ridding the world of a threat, no matter the letter of the law.
When this day happens?
Jury nullification will likely become the very last and only weapon righteous peoples will have remaining in their carefully and craftily emptied arsenal.
That, is a fact.
It was an 1895 supreme court ruling that stated that jurors “need not be told of their rights”. It didn’t say that jurors don’t have rights, only that they could be kept secret so we could have dumb jurors.
Exactly.
If Juries worked they way they were supposed to, guys like John Couey wouldn’t be sitting in prison. He would be dead because the jury would not have allowed evidence of earlier crimes to be tossed out. In fact the animal’s sister and brother in law would have likely gone to trial as well.
Makes no never mind what it said. Only 9 black robes count for anything now.
Unless 0bama wants the SC rounded up to ten or twelve, in which case only his liberal majority will count for anything. :(
Conservatives use nullification to inject common sense and rational thought into the process. Liberals use nullification to ensure an outcome that is beyond belief.
My last jury duty experience included the judge warning us ahead of time about nullification and letter of the law, etc.,
and no way did we have the right to do that - I just thought to myself, “KMA, your honor.” The case was plea bargained, of course.
If they made the pamphlets visible, they no doubt wanted to be let go.
Correct, it’s an easy way to get out of jury duty.
And jury null applies to marijuana cases too, in case anyone here happens to serve on one.
Cool FACT: The 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because the wording forbids not only CONGRESS, but ANYONE from infringing on it. The 1st says “Congress shall make no law...”. The 2nd say “shall NOT be infringed!” Period! End of debate!
I agree.
If you really believed in jury nullification you’d try to get on a case in order to use it.
But it was sure a short day at the courthouse for them!
Same day, I got into the pool for a dope case. A teacher and some young guy told the judge during voire dire they could not sit on the case because they believed dope should be legal, judge blasted them and sent them home. If they really felt that way, the jury room during deliberation is the time to bring that up. I didn’t get to hear the case, the guy plead once he and his lawyer could actually see a jury. A medium-short day for me, with a long lunch at the beach.
He or she asks if any juror would be unable to follow the judge's instructions as to what the law is, and to convict if the facts show that the law, as given by the judge's instructions, was violated.
In other words, the judges are asking if any juror would engage in jury nullification.
If a juror says he or she would be unable to convict, even if the facts and the judge's instructions, mandate conviction, that juror is dismissed.
If a juror is willing to engage in jury nullification but doesn't admit that when the judge makes the above inquiry, and is picked as a juror on a specific trial, and then refuses to convict as an act of nullification, I believe that juror would be replaced and/or charged with contempt of court.
Thus the judges’ initial questioning is an effective way of nullifying jury nullification.
The only way around this particular judicial ploy would be for every juror in the pool, or at least most of them, to declare themselves ready and willing to engage in jury nullification when first questioned by the judges.
If enough jurors did this over a long enough period of time, the judges would have to either seat jurors willing to engage in jury nullification, or cease holding trials.
While this is theoretically possible, it is very unlikely unless the entire citizenry becomes aware of the possibility and radicalized enough to do it.
I doubt this will happen. But who knows what will happen if Obama and company decide that they are the law and the constitution can be ignored.
Right, and then lawyers try to subvert this with the “selection process”
What you are essentially saying is that if our population was educated enough to engage in consistent and large-scale jury nullification, this would work. I would go a step further and note that if the population were that educated, and that firm in its stance on limited government, we wouldn't have 1/2 of the problems that we do. The fact is that the population has been seriously dumbed down, certainly insofar as civics is concerned. Until that is fixed (and it is a multi-generational project, as was the destruction of an educated populace), we'll go nowhere on this issue.
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.