Replies

The thing to do is bring more and better Heller cases, and attack the problem from the legislative end. Where the 2nd Amendment has been consistently ignored for years by everyone, that's the only thing to do.

The ONLY thing? I've spoken with Dick Heller personally, and the fact is that it took him and Alan Gura about 20 years to set up that case and bring it through to its conclusion. It very nearly didn't make it, because three other plaintiffs were dismissed for want of standing, because they weren't under felony-level indictment for violating an unconstitutional law.

That's 20 years worth of prosecutions that have been proven unconstitutional, and that's a travesty of justice. Isn't the principal purpose of the jury to render a JUST verdict for not only the State, but also the defendant?

You'd have a heck of a time finding a juror in either place that would think there was anything wrong with that.

All it takes is one. And besides, it has already happened in at least two cases which we know of: Jury nullification at work in marijuana, gun cases - and not just formally hung juries, but full-on acquittals. "Chaos every time?"

Jury deliberations are secret. From the last words of the article: "For that reason, we'll likely never know exactly when nullification is being exercised. But we can celebrate it when we see it."

I was involved on the trial level with three, perhaps four, cases of juror misconduct.

See, I had a feeling you were talking about unicorns - three or four cases in 30 years. So why are you throwing out wild-eyed terms like "chaos?"

That's not the way to get any major change done.

Remember the parable of the starfish?

A juror is not required to directly participate in systematic injustice, regardless of whether or not it can be addressed at the appellate level.

I'm aware of many more cases than I personally participated in. Jury nullification as a concept comes up pretty regularly here, usually in the form of a criminal defendant seeking a jury instruction to that effect (it's always refused). It's permitted in argument, but I don't think many defense lawyers see it as a winner. More like an "I know I'm guilty, but cut me a break" argument.

And in a sense we're talking past each other. If what jurors WANT is to avoid convictions under an unjust law, the better course is for jurors to fact-find if they can, since that's their proper job.

Every lawyer with time in the courthouse knows that jurors will go with the just result if you give them something to hang their hats on. And that happens every day, it's not dramatic or earthshaking, just good trial lawyers showing jurors how to do the right thing.

"Jury nullification" is a hobby horse of very limited utility. Maybe even a unicorn.

But if you want to ride that hobby horse, be my guest. I'll stick with what I know works.