Posted on 04/29/2010 12:07:13 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
KNOXVILLE - Federal court jurors reported today they have reached a verdict on three of four charges against former University of Tennessee student David C. Kernell, accused of illegally accessing the private e-mail account of 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
But they also reported they are deadlocked on the first count, a charge of identity theft.
Without asking what their verdict is on the other counts, U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Phillips sent them back to the jury room to continue deliberating the first count.
In their written communication to the judge this afternoon, the jurors said: "Some of us feel not all jurors are following the jury instruction."
On its third morning of deliberations, the East Tennessee jury pondering charges against Kernell asked to review a federal law addressing identity theft. That's the count on which the jurors deadlocked.
After some discussion with lawyers, Phillips decided today to give them a copy of the law - with some sections blacked out that he said are irrelevant to the case.
Jurors then indicated they wished to go to lunch. The panel is expected to resume deliberations at 1 p.m. today.
(Excerpt) Read more at knoxnews.com ...
Well this is a criminal trial. A juror’s decision is either one of two choices: 1) guilty; 2) not guilty.
I was once on a jury for DUI of an underage person. During jury selection, the lawyers were asking people if they would have trouble convicting a 17-year-old.
-PJ
The idea that jurors can simply ignore the law and do what they think is "right" sounds facially appealing . . . but who decides what is "right"? What if you have twelve different ideas of what is "right"?
I'm afraid that in many cases "right" amounts to "I sympathize with this defendant and think he should get off", or alternatively, "I think this defendant is scum and he should go to jail, if not for this, then for something else he probably did and didn't get caught." The jury instructions exist to provide a borderline to stop sympathetic or antagonistic jurors from deciding cases on emotion rather than law.
If a law is bad, the place to go is an appeal if there are constitutional grounds, or to your legislator and get it overturned. By the way, getting a law overturned legislatively will almost always result in reversals on appeal for folks who got convicted before the law was changed. The Wilson case here was a good example of that - a badly drafted child molestation statute accidentally mandated hard time for teenage heavy petting . . . . Wilson was a horribly unsympathetic defendant but they still changed the law and his conviction was reversed.
As a practical matter, the sympathetic defendant would get off on nullification < cough, cough O.J. cough, cough > while the less appealing defendant would get slammed.
That is essentially what has always happened under the French or Continental system, where the idea is that prosecutor, defense attorney and judge are all 'seeking the truth' rather than the English system of two lawyers fighting to the last ditch and stone wall for their man, with the judge to see fair play under the law. An abstract search for 'truth' by all concerned has the opposite effect from what you would expect -- the Dreyfus case is the usual example.
The author of the jury handbook also is, shall we say, less than candid in representing the holding of a decision he relies on. In fact, it holds the opposite of what he says.
I don't think I'd rely on that if your life or freedom are at stake.
LOL
I don't think I'd rely on that if your life or freedom are at stake.
Unless there's a mind-reader in the courtroom... I don't think someone is going to be able to get inside a person's mind and see how that person made their determination ... :-) And if I think a law is unjust and should not be enforced, then I'll vote not to convict someone on the basis of that unjust law. And there's not anything that anyone can do about that (and that's one of the "beauties" about" knowing stuff" before you go into a situation like that).
What you know in your head "stays in your head" doncha know... :-)
He said, yes I killed her, and she deserved it. An all male jury found him not guilty.
Now, Now, Carrie,
You know the Marsupial Magistrate is there on that bench to uphold God and Truth and Right.
You do, don’t you?
;-)
Well this is a criminal trial. A juror’s decision is either one of two choices: 1) guilty; 2) not guilty.
Let me clarify that for you then... in context of what you said. If the guy is "guilty" of the crime as specified by the law (and you say that the defendant is either determined to be guilty or not guilty according to that law) -- I'm saying that if you, as a juror, see that law as unjust -- then you vote "Not Guilty" -- even though you see that he was "guilty" according to that specified law.
I hope that's clearer and shows how the "determination" goes further than simply "guilty or not guilty" according to just that law. And any juror can do that and no one can do anything about it.
If you refuse to deliberate, though, and one or more of the other jurors report you to the judge, you may be subject to some close questioning and find yourself in contempt.
We've had a run of cases here recently where jurors were removed from cases for refusal to deliberate. They fall both ways -- in some cases it was decided that it wasn't actually a refusal to deliberate but a decision on the facts (not the law) and the conviction was reversed. In others the removal was held proper. In either case, the appeals court mandates inquiry of the juror, under oath.
Did his lawyer request a jury instruction on justification?
The idea that jurors can simply ignore the law and do what they think is "right" sounds facially appealing . . . but who decides what is "right"? What if you have twelve different ideas of what is "right"?
The thing is, no one can do a single thing to stop it... and that's what conservatives need to know... that they can put a "dead stop" to any law that is oppressive or unjust.
I say, "Get the word out" and make sure conservatives know you can do that.
Well, I hope you can reconcile that with your juror oath.
I won't have any problem at all..., and neither will anyone else who knows that if there is an unjust and oppressive law that a corrupt system is trying to enforce -- can be stopped dead by jurors. That's what jurors need to know.
If you refuse to deliberate, though, and one or more of the other jurors report you to the judge, you may be subject to some close questioning and find yourself in contempt.
I wouldn't have any problem deliberating ... but I know what counts... and that's when it comes down to a vote... jurors can be smart and do the right thing when it comes to unjust laws put into place by Marxist/Liberal/Leftists for the purpose of oppressing people.
Jurors need to be informed of how to stop these things dead in their tracks. Conservatives need to be informed and educated.
Its not my place as a juror to determine if a law is just or not.
That is for the judicial branch to decide.
Its not my place as a juror to determine if a law is just or not.
I think it is for citizens in this country and especially conservatives. But, if you personally don't think you should do so -- then no one is going to make you... so no problem there.
BUT, I want to make sure as many conservatives as possible knows that as a juror, they can put a total stop to any laws that are wrong, which are passed by an oppressive and corrupt governmental system that Marxists/Liberals/Leftists have bulldozed through the legislature which is oppressive to conservatives.
If they ever run across that, the last bulwark of freedom for conservatives is as jurors and making sure that no unjust laws ever get enforced. As a juror, you can do that and no one can do anything about it.
But, of course, for you individually -- that's totally up to you ... :-)
As a constituent I feel it my place to call my legislators to express displeasure with laws I don’t agree with.
But not as a juror in a criminal trial; that’s totally inappopriate.
But if every juror decides simply not to enforce "unjust" laws, and every juror has his own ideas as to what's "unjust", what kind of mess are we going to be in?
I don't think you've thought this through to its logical conclusion. If laws can't be relied upon to be enforced by the legal system (i.e. the jurors) then it's going to be chaos.
There is PLENTY of room for you to acquit almost any defendant either in finding facts or applying the law as charged to the facts, without going to this extreme a theory. The concept of 'jury nullification' as you propose it means that you will be lying when you take your jury oath, you will set yourself up as the sole legislator and judge as well as jury, and you'll violate the whole concept of the English system.
Other than that, I guess it's o.k.
Even the USSC compelled Pres Clinton to testify in Paula Jones’ civil case even though Pres Clinton felt he was just “too important” at the time to do so because he was President of the US. The USSC told Pres. Clinton that no one is above the law.
I wouldn’t be trying to get you to do what you didn’t want to do. I would only be telling other conservatives what they should know about this and they can decide for themselves. The main thing is for conservatives to be aware of that power that they have. If an individual doesn’t want to exercise that power themselves — then that’s the choice they have made...
I don't think you've thought this through to its logical conclusion. If laws can't be relied upon to be enforced by the legal system (i.e. the jurors) then it's going to be chaos.
I think jurors are responsible enough to decide that for themselves. And the fact of the matter is that they can decide that for themselves, no matter what someone else says.
So, in reality, there's not too much any judge or court or DA or lawyer or whomever can do about it. It's the juror who decides whether to convict or not and it's solely their decision when it comes down to their vote.
As long as they know that... that's fine with me.
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.