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.
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.
Are you kidding me? As far as I can see, most of the public seems to think that if they're on a jury, it's their role in the process to vote guilty, to convict anyone the government sees fit to try. IOW, they're even more sheeplified than the court is asking them to be by forswearing nullification.
“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”.
Not really. You just debate endlessly. You know in your mind you will never vote guilty. Argue it till they give up and are deadlocked. No need at all to announce you are engaging in “jury nullification”. No juror announced that after the OJ trial.
A judge cant hold you in contempt for voting not guilty. Only refusal to deliverate does that. So deliberate away.
You think the cop wasnt telling the truth, just from the look on his face,,, etc etc.
Get it?