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.
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.
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!
Screw the law. I’m going to vote my politics. They do it. So will I. Dump motor oil in a wilderness area stream. You’ll get a hung jury if I’m on it.
We’re at war.
It’s Ironic you post this subject. I was given a citizens Rule Book Jury Handbook on Saturday while at a Dump Chris Dodd rally in Hartford, CT.
If you (or anyone else) believes that juries possess that power, just don't mention it when you are being interviewed by the judge for potential jury service - unless you do NOT want to serve on the jury. Judges do not like the idea of juries actually 'judging the law'...
The judge can instruct him as to the pertinent law in the case. But court cases aren't based just on the applicable laws, but also on the facts of the case. The jury determines the facts; and then decides whether or not to impose a penalty. If a juror decides the application of the law would be "unfair" for some reason — even if the evidence points to the defendant's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" — the juror can refuse to return a guilty verdict. In effect, a jury nullification says, "for reasons that satisfy me, the juror, I will not apply the law to this particular defendant."
Federal and state authorities have the power to indict (upon the direction of a grand jury), but they do not have the power to convict. Only a "jury of one's peers" can convict. In many if not most cases, it requires 100% unanimity among jurors to convict. The state cannot punish unless the jury decides the defendant is guilty.
The OJ case is a prime example of jury nullification. Most people detest what the jury did in that case. But they were well within their sovereign rights to find as they did. It's been suggested they nullified to make a clear statement about the misconduct of police and prosecutors in the case. Evidently they thought that was worse than what OJ was "alleged" to have done. Whatever. In any case, OJ walked.
Jury nullification could be an excellent tool in RKBA cases. It usually only takes one juror to prevent a finding of guilt.
However, a jury nullification only applies to the specific defendant in the specific case. It does not and cannot establish a legal precedent for other like cases.
But it makes it a lot harder for DAs and courts to successfully railroad people for exercising their constitutional rights.
Bear that in mind if you're ever called to jury duty! It's one of the few opportunities in life nowadays when the individual citizen truly can be what the Constitution says he is: Sovereign.
Jury nullification gives judges the willies. Therefore, at voir dire — the interview that determines whether a potential juror will serve or be dismissed — it's best not to say anything about your knowledge of the law in general, and jury nullification in particular. (Unless you want to be dismissed speedily from service.)
I am curious. Who benefits more from an informed juror, the prosecution or the defense?
I’ve been on FR long enough to know that someone will correct me if I’m wrong but jury nullification involves more than just a single juror - thus “jury nullification” and not “juror nullification”. A single juror refusing to convict someone guilty under the letter of the law would result in a hung jury, a mistrial, and subsequent retrial of the defendant. In order for jury nullification to occur, the juror would have to convince all his peers to vote not guilty in the face of the law. IOW, the job would be to put the unjust law on trial within the jury room without prompting someone to “squeal” to the judge.
Jury nullification was hijacked by the communists in the 1960’s in the Oakland 7 case (Charles R. Garry, CPUSA attorney and later Hillary’s boss on the Black Panther New Haven torture murder trial) and then in the Chicago 7 trial.
COmrade Bill Kunstler told a group of us in March 1969 that the Oakland 7 trial was a trial run of tactics to see if they could so disrupt the judge, the witnesses, and the court as a whole (including warping or disrupting the jury) to the point that a mistrial had to be declared.
It worked beyond their wildest dreams and most conspiracy cases against communist agitators and even violent offenders ended in mistrials or acquittals. This was esp. true of criminal tresspass cases on college campuses (including Jimmy Carter’s daughter) using a tactic of disruption based on “imminent danger” of a nuclear war, use of armed force against a foreign enemy, etc.
This is one double-edged sword most Americans never saw until it stabbed them in the back.