Here is a sample, from a thread on a Voir Dire Jury Selection:
"Judge McGroarty asked every prospective juror to enter the box "And will you promise to obey any instructions in the law I may give you, even should you disagree with one or more of them?"
(One poster's response)
"I think he's overstating the intent of the judge's question. What I think the judge is asking is "If I instruct you to disregard this witnesses' testimony, or instruct you not to discuss the case outside this courtroom or instruct you not to read or watch any news coverage of this case, will you be able to follow my instructions?"
" Judges believe that most of their decisions are based on the laws handed down by USOC or their state Supreme Court or an appeals court. IOW, that is "the law". When the judge makes these instructions, it is to insure a fair trial instead of a mistrial or a case overturned on appeal."
"I don't think the judge was asking them to rip up their legal rights and blindly follow the judge's every belief."
"Besides, if one is asked to sit on a jury, it is to determine whether the facts of the case match the law, not to decide if the law itself is fair or correct. I can believe prostitution should be legal but, while it is illegal, decide that a prostitute broke the law engaging in prostitution."
"I may disagree with some gun laws but, if someone is held in violation of that law, I can still agree that the defendant violated the law, which is generally what the jury is being asked to decide."
"If the author wants to *change* the laws, he should run for office."
------------------------
I guess Mr. Li's mistake was not running for Central Committee office. With a prospective juror pool like this, we may as well be ruled by a Central Committee, too.
Cordially,
Besides, if one is asked to sit on a jury, it is to determine whether the facts of the case match the law, not to decide if the law itself is fair or correct.
What do you say of Jury Nullification?
![]() |
Please consider making a donation to help support the existence of this site. |
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
LINKS FIJA : The Fully Informed Jury Association The Jury Rights Project History of Jury Nullification Juror's Handbook The Citizen's Rulebook Jury Nullification and the Rule of Law Jury Nullification : The Top Secret Consititutional Right Try the Law Jury Nullification Jury Nullification - What the Hell is it? An Essay on the Trial by Jury (1852) SoapBox! Fully Informed Jury Page CRFC - Jury Nullification MEDIA In Jury Rooms, A Form of Civil Protest Grows - Washington Post ![]() What lawyers and judges won't tell you about juries, Progressive Review (1990) LAURA KRIHO CASE |
The Words of the Founding Fathers Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction... It is not only the juror's right, but his duty to find the verdict I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made
|
Last Modified - Tue, May 14, 2002 | Created by Erowid |
[ Back to Freedom & Law ] |
---|
[Plants & Drugs] [Mind & Spirit] [Freedom & Law] [Arts & Sciences] [Library] [Search] [About] (content and html © 2002 Erowid.org. Please ask permission before publicly reproducing.) |
---|
Of course you can.
But under our political system you are not obligated to.
The Juror's discretion is absolute and final.
Isn't it odd that no jury has ever been jailed for "disobeying" the judge's instructions?