Posted on 12/11/2001 7:03:39 PM PST by woollyone
I served on one jury in the 1980's and it was a lot of work, even though it was a short trial. The reason? The case was over drunk driving and one of the jurors obviously was married to a drunk and was in denial that her spouse was an alcoholic. The facts were as clear as day, with the defendant getting on the witness stand and ADMITTING he'd downed two drinks of hard liquor, four beers, and one-half sandwich in about two hours, plus testimony from a police officer who trailed the guy for blocks, watching him run up over a curb, driving in two lanes, administering a breathalyzer test, which the defendant failed miserably. The hard part: the woman married to the alcoholic kept saying the breathalyzer wasn't functioning properly, despite sworn police testimony to the contrary. After praying at length silently in the jury room, I had to excuse myself, go to the ladies' room, and pray warfare type prayers for this woman to convict the guy. (No other juror doubted his guilt.) Eventually, and by the oddest circumstances, she voted to convict. But I felt as if I'd spent all day running around a track with no break.
Be prepared for anything. I'm sure you will do an excellent job.
By the way, I doubted I'd get seated on the jury, being a Christian (gasp!), and a member of some conservative groups. But God wanted me on that jury and He used humor to get me there. During jury questioning, one of the questions was, "Have you formed an opinion about people who drink and drive?", and out of my mouth came, "Well, if someone got drunk and hit me, I'd certainly form an opinion." The courtroom erupted in laughter. Another question resulted in a similar response and laughter. To my amazement, I was seated. Our verdict HAD to be unanimous or the guy would have walked. God knew what He was about. You may find yourself in just such a pivotal position.
Jury nullification has to be coupled with an aggressive education campaign, or it just frees individuals. To get the law overturned, the prosecutors have to be losing lots of cases. Otherwise all you can do is keep one individualat a time from being convicted of breaking an unjust or unconstitutional law, which isn't a bad start.
Back in college (about 10 years ago) me and a buddy did a quick in-and-out at the county courthouse and distributed this little pamphlet to the pool of potential jurors. ( I'd recently just served myself and knew the layout of the place.)
Ah, those were the days...
Absolutely. When I served on a jury in Dane county, Wisconsin, I had to take an oath to that effect.
Knock yourself out. However I posed an ethical question in my post earlier...would you care to take a stab at it?
mmm hmm...and we both know Who the Counselor was that influenced her. ;-)
They can't try you without showing your jury the flier. They will never do that. However, sometimes they will offer you a reduced charge if you plead guilty.
NEVER TALK TO A COP OR A PROSECUTOR WITHOUT YOUR LAWYER THERE!!!
Never accept a plea bargain until you consult a good lawyer.
By the same arguement, is it ethical for a judge to give guidelines, disguised as orders to jurors that are unconstitutional? Was it unethical to hide Jews and lie to the government Nazis? Was it unethical to hide Slaves, in violation of the law? Was it unethical to try the nazis at nurenbeurg even though most of them followed the law completely? etc, etc ad nauseum.
Your question is based upon a false assumption. That assuption is that the motives are to make political statements, which isn't necessarily correct. Mostly, we serve on jurys to be fair "peers", who are empowered to decide whether a person's unalienable rights should be revoked or curtailed because of actions on their behalf, based upon the law of the land. It is only fair that not only should the facts, but also the law should be evaluated in each case. To respond to tyrants who would cull out the knowledgable "peers" for the sake of achieving an agenda is actually worse than a juror who creatively presents his/her best side so that he/she has a chance to be a participant. The juror or grand juror is the last check in the judicial branch and the ultimate litmus for the applicability of law.
I hope you won't live to regret your lack of understanding. If you want a guy acquitted then hang the jury until they agree then you would be on firm ground. If you want to challenge the constitutional soundness of a particular law then break it and take it all the way to the USSC on appeal. The entire “jury nullification” stance has as much chance of doing anything positive as the various income tax protest movements. Both get a lot of naive people in a world of hurt.
If this is true, then please explain it's successful impact upon the fugitive slave act and prohibition and others? Unfortuantaley, history shows that en masse, jury nullification has been effective in repealing bad laws.
Though income tax is a poor law, using this as an example is a poor comparison, because the IRS is shown to be the most feared government agency. IIRC there were survey results that were recently posted on FR to this very effect. In essence, the biggest bully of the fedgov. That fear supresses dissent, for who would want to be the next victim of the IRS. It is only in front of the IRS that a person is treated as guilty and must prove his innocence. Think it can't happen, or doesn't, then please look back over the Clinton years again.
cheers
Well...THAT came out all wrong! it's late.
Meant to say...."tyrants who would cull out the knowledgable "peers" for the sake of achieving thier agenda is worse than a juror who creatively presents his/her best side so that he/she has a chance to be a participant"
Time for sleep...
Keep telling yourself that. It was Jury nullification that finally caused the legislature to send out a constitutional amendment repealing prohibition.
You are confusing jury nullification with refusal to convict. Jury Nullification implies an actionable striking down of a law based on the judgment of 12 citizens in one court case with one defendant. I am sure that you think that OJ was freed because of Jury nullification. But, hey the next time you get on a jury , pull out your "Jurors' Handbook" and start giving your lessons on constitutional law.
No. You are asserting that they are not the same thing and they are. Jury nullification is the refusal to convict. Meaning that the jurors judged the law to be unconstitutional and immoral. In fact, jurors considered Al Capone more moral than the government and wouldn't indict or convict him.
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.