Jurors' Handbook- (stuff freepers should know)

Fully Informed Jury Association ^ | 12-11-01 | FIJA

[woollyone]

The reason I post this is because I was recently summoned for jury duty and I wanted a bit more insight regarding juror’s rights, jury nullification and the Voir Dire process. After finding these resources, I figured that other freepers might find this information useful. Hope this is helpful for others.

[woollyone]

Polite ping to you. Though I don't often "shotgun bump", if you're not comfortable being pinged, please freepmail me and I'll be happy to respect your wishes. Hope the article is helpful.

baa

[Always A Marine]

Freedom loving bump. Jurors are the ultimate judges of the law itself, not merely the facts of a case. Never shirk the opportunity to serve...

[Doctor Stochastic]

The article explains the Government's wish to deny jury trials to suspected terrorists (and angry hunters.)

[woollyone]

I think the biggest hurdle for most freedom lovers is getting through the Voir Dire process. They try to cull the Constitutional thinkers out of the jury pool. After that, it seems that knowing your rights and the power that you wield as a juror is paramount to being effective. These judges and attorneys will try to push you around and intimidate you.

[StockAyatollah]

Next time I am called for Jury Duty, I will wear torn jeans and a t-shirt. Maybe I would get past voire dire. I'd love the chance to sit in on a fed case and ruin some prosecutor's day! I guess the freepers who are "law and order, do everything the government tells you"-types won't like that.

[John H K]

I was amazed how easy it was to sway people. I was on jury duty a long time, only was on one actual Jury, was struck by the defense on another.

An hour into deliberations, it was me voting to convict, 11 to acquit. Two hours later, conviction on 3 of 4 counts. While I was a college debater, I'm hardly Mr. Charisma..I was astonished how easy it was for me to control people and change their minds.

It is INCONCEIVABLE to me I'd enter a jury room with one opinion on guilt and vote a different way. I'd stay there for months or hang the jury before I gave in.

[Frohickey]

So, did OJ do it, or didn't he?

[woollyone]

"It is INCONCEIVABLE to me I'd enter a jury room with one opinion on guilt and vote a different way"

For the most part, I agree, however, I would have to be open to evidence, or testimony that I initially may have dismissed as not relevant, but may be important anyway. Certainly, the information gathering is done in the courtroom, not in the jury room, and like you, I'm not easily swayed from my decisions. But, so far, every time I've been picked for duty, they've cancelled before I even got to the courtroom. If I end up stinking up the jury room and ruining someone's best laid plans when I serve, I'll be certain to post the humor.

If you read the Voir Dire link that is in the article, you'll note how the attorneys craft their questions to try and define the jurors according to their personality type and how they try to stack the jury with preferred types and numbers of "influencers". This influential personality is not typically a personality that is easy to hide, so the Voir Dire process should be approached with cautious responses. It probably wouldn't be a great idea to tell that you and your freeper buddies go out and picket the local tyrants and their policies...unless of course you're trying to get out of jury duty.

Take care

[VetoBill]

Excellent post. I have heard instances of judges instructing juries to base their decision on the law, not on the law itself. In fact I have read stories where judges have become quite incensed if juries try to nullify a law. Does anyone have any links, facts to support these allegations?

[woollyone]

I'm so sick of hearing of OJ and his bullspit. Wish the bum would fade away.

[Dakotabound]

OH NO! You'll soon make the anti-libertarian hate list with this post! After all, this is an issue near and dear to libertarians...and according to many here, THAT'S AKIN TO BEING A BABY-EATING, DOG-KICKING LIBERAL!

(Funny, can't figure how the Dems would fit in with FIJA...)

[supercat]

Excellent post. I have heard instances of judges instructing juries to base their decision on the law, not on the law itself. In fact I have read stories where judges have become quite incensed if juries try to nullify a law. Does anyone have any links, facts to support these allegations?

Worse, there have been cases where judges have told jurors that they are to decide a case based upon what was actually their own 'interpretation' of the law, even when such interpretation is found neither in statute nor in any other court precedent.

[woollyone]

If you go to the FIJA site here There are some interesting stories.

The judge's instructions are not an oath (regardless of what the judge says about the issue), but only guidelines. Generally, they try to intimidate jurors. IIRC, jury nulification in the North helped turn the tide in the slave issue, though later, the judges tried to get around these problems.

[womanvet]

bttt, especially for my info.

[Texasforever]

I guess you could take the nullification route for all the good it will do you. You can also just vote to aquit without any reason or explanation required. Jury nullification does nothing and has no impact on what you would consider an unconstitutional law. The law will still be applied and people will still be charged and convicted of violating it. I guess there may be some emotional satisfaction in playing Chief Justice but it does not mean anything in the end.

[VetoBill]

Thanks, I will check that out.

[woollyone]

Chief Justice John Jay, U.S. Supreme Court Georgia v Brailsford (3 Dallas 1, 1794)
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

- Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice 1804 signer of The Declaration of Independence. "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."

Nobody is suggestion megalomania here, by, as you say, "playing Chief Justice". Merely desiring to know what our rights are as jurors. One day, it may be a knowledgable juror that saves you from being charged with an unjust law...not because you are guitly of what you were charged with, but the law behind the charges violated your Constitutional rights.

"...it does not mean anything in the end"

"Indeed, if juries do not have the right and power to nullify the law, we must face the fact that Harriet Tubman, one of the great heroines of American history, would and should have been guilty of multiple federal crimes by violating the fugitive slave laws. That is a morally revolting prospect, but judges today who reject nullification must confess that they would enforce the fugitive slave laws and convict Harriet Tubman. If they were to honestly admit as much, and hold themselves powerless to disobey unjust and morally despicable laws, they should be told that "obeying orders" was not accepted as a defense in the Nazi war crime trials at Nuremberg." (1)

[woollyone]

"Until the middle of the 1800s, federal and state judges often instructed the juries they had the right to disregard the court’s view of the law. (Barkan, citing 52 Harvard Law Review, 682-616) Then northern jurors refused to convict abolitionists who had violated the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law. In response judges began questioning jurors to find out if they were prejudiced against the government, dismissing any who were. In 1852 Lysander Spooner, a Massachusetts lawyer and champion of individual liberties, complained "that courts have repeatedly questioned jurors to ascertain whether they were prejudiced against the government. . . . The reason of this . . . was that ‘the Fugitive Slave Law, so called’ was so obnoxious to a large portion of the people, as to render a conviction under it hopeless, if the jurors were taken indiscriminately from among the people." Modern treatments of abolitionism praise these jury nullification verdicts for helping the anti-slavery cause – rather than condemn them for undermining the rule of law and the uniformity of justice." (2)

[Texasforever]

I have read all of the research on jury nullification but..... so what?. If it carried the power its proponents claim then any jury, in any venue, could declare any law as unconstitutional and the law would be forever nullified. That is not the case. The power of a jury is to acquit for ANY reason and it is only applicable to that single trial. Now there is an ethical question for the potential "nullifier" or "OJ Juror"...is it right to lie to get on a panel in order to make a political statement?