JURY NULLIFICATION: EMPOWERING THE JURY AS THE FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT

callmegav.com ^ | March 2015 | Justice William Goodloe, Washington State Supreme Court, retired

[dirtymac]

thanks! Good to know.

[WMarshal]

"However, the judge has the right to set aside a jury verdict."
_____________

There is nothing that I find objectionable about that. I like it.

[Tymesup]

I don’t like jury selection. We put 12 in a jury for diversity. I don’t want a citizen tossed because of their education, occupation, age or ethnic background.

The judge should ask, are you related to the parties involved? No? Get in the box.

This approach has a bonus. You get a summons, you’re almost certain to serve. You’re not wasting a day waiting for the interview. AND you’re getting a summons much less frequently.

[WASCWatch]

Did not know of Justice Goodloe, but am on a first name basis with former WASC Justice Richard Sanders who would agree with everything the former Chief Justice Goodloe wrote.

[WASCWatch]

No, you would not like it in many cases.

Judges can also attempt to set aside jury verdicts in civil cases to protect a government from decisions a jury makes against the government.

[WASCWatch]

Why would you do that? You should be a willing jury member to prevent a possible injustice.

[central_va]

Forth branch? I count 7 branches of government.

1. Executive¹
2. Judicial¹
3. Congress ²
4. MSM³
5. Deep State bureaucracy³
6. Jury Nullification³

¹Un-elected or rigged election

²Elected, maybe in red states

³Totally unaccountable to the citizenry

[gitmo]

Isn’t Facebook one of the branches?

[central_va]

We could add FB to my list

[Little Ray]

I don’t like jury selection either. But it is a fact of our legal system.

[Little Ray]

Because I like my work, and most jury duty is excruciatingly boring?

[Conservative4Life]

I was picked for jury duty once, when I asked about this ... I was dismissed and sent home.

[WASCWatch]

So your work is more important than possibly helping an injustice.

I suspect you would have a different attitude if you were wrongfully charged with a crime.

[WASCWatch]

I would have lied and gotten on the jury.

If a judge lies about required to follow the law as he gives it, lying to get on the jury presents no moral delimma.

[WMarshal]

"I was picked for jury duty once, when I asked about this ... I was dismissed and sent home."
_____________

If I get asked about jury nullification I will respond with “Is that when they delouse the jury?” That should make me look stupid enough to get a jury duty.

[Cboldt]

-- Can't the prosecutor go after defendant again if the result is a hung jury? --

Yes, and they often do just that.

[Still Thinking]

I got called once and they’re questioning potential jurors and I’m sitting out in the seats reading a book. Questions are like “Do you know the prosecutor?” “Can you hit the pot if you pee standing up?” “How many fingers am I holding up?”, but somehow the bailiff was convinced if I didn’t pay attention to the 34th irritation, er, iteration of the questions, I wouldn’t be quick to answer when it was my turn. [eyeroll]

[reed13k]

Every time I read or partake in a discussion around juries and their responsibilities, powers, and processes I immediately am reminded of Charles Laughton in “This Land is Mine” speaking to the Jury at the end of the movie and letting them know he understands what they have to do to allow the French to retain some semblance of their civil rights.

Great movie

[Political Junkie Too]

jurors are sovereign in this area and cannot be punished for the verdict they render, no matter how unpopular it is to the general public or the specific judge presiding over the case. Also, defendants found not guilty cannot be retried for the same crime. Hence, once a jury finds a defendant not guilty, there is no mechanism for a prosecutor to bring the case against the same defendant again.

Are you sure about this?

What about a judge who sets aside the jury verdict and makes a bench ruling for a new trial?

-PJ

[TBP]

The Sussman verdict was a clear and overt act of nullification, based entirely on partisanship, witha total disregard for the facts and evidence.