Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I just got called for Jury duty for the first time (want info on Jury Nullification) - VANITY

Posted on 03/12/2003 7:27:40 AM PST by The FRugitive

I just got called for jury duty for the first time.

I'm curious about jury nullification in case I get picked and get a consensual "criminal" case (tax evasion, drug posession, gun law violation, etc.). What would I need to know?

This could be my chance to stick it to the man. ;)

(Of course if I were to get a case of force or fraud I would follow the standing law.)


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: jurormisconduct; jurytampering
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 441-452 next last
To: AppyPappy
Like driving drunk? Or speeding? Or passing a stopped school bus? If you don't hurt anyone, should it be legal?

Well philisophically speaking, that's a tough one. But personally no, I would absolutely NOT consider aquiting on a DUI case based on the law itself.

61 posted on 03/12/2003 8:01:29 AM PST by The FRugitive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
using jury nullification correctly.

There are only opinions on the correctness of actions in this regard. No standard exists beyond that.

62 posted on 03/12/2003 8:02:19 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: The FRugitive
Just ask the prosecution lawyers what nullification is when they are picking a jury. You'll be much better off.
63 posted on 03/12/2003 8:05:06 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The FRugitive
Last time I did jury duty and was being interviewed for a 5 person cocaine bust (thankfully I did not get selected) at least 3 people got excused for saying they do not agree with the drug laws in America.
64 posted on 03/12/2003 8:05:57 AM PST by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Carlos
If you can speak in complete sentences, wear shirts with buttons, and have any knowledge whatsoever of the US Constitution, you will never sit on a jury!

I figured the same, particularly after having served on a federal grand jury empaneled during the height of the OJ Simpson trial mess, during which we heard most every possible lawyer and OJ joke known to man, either repeated by my fellow jurors or by our escorting deputy US marshalls.

Though that kept us from the federal jury selection pool for a specified period, [3 years IIRC] shortly thereafter I found myself summoned to our county's superior court to serve on ANOTHER grand jury, this time to deal with another matter. I figured that I'd had enough of my civic duty for the preceeding six months, and I had already heard all the jokes that otherwise might have made the experience pbearable.

Accordingly, when we received our questionaire for personal data for the vore dire process, when I canme to the question asking *occupation* I correctly answered *newspaper columnist.* The next question called for a *description of duties of occupation.* Well, since they asked....

*Investigation and publication of information relating to governmental misconduct, to include judicial misconduct, corruption, fraud and perjury within the Superior court of this county.*

I was called to serve on the case anyway, and later found out the reason why: they'd lost our questionaires, and we had to do another set after we'd been sworn in.

A few months after that, our county's prosecuting attorney was arrested on 20 counts of federal charges of money laundering, forgery and having defrauded 14 former clients of $740,000. He pled guilty and there was no jury trial, though his decision may have been influenced by a suicide attempt in which he was doused with gasoline and set afire after his hands had been tied to the steering wheel with saran wrap, which was supposed to have burned away in the fire, making his death appear a suicidal self-immolation.

You may increase the odds that you'll not be chosen for jury duty, but don't figure it's a sure thing.

-archy-/-

65 posted on 03/12/2003 8:06:54 AM PST by archy (Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: showme_the_Glory
LOL, do they ask stuff like that? Can you claim your fifth amendment rights under jury questioning?

Well...I've never been to a turkish bath house. What are they like?
66 posted on 03/12/2003 8:06:57 AM PST by The FRugitive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Iron Eagle
it would not be proper for a country that wants to live by the rule of law.

By that standard, neither was the American Revolution.

67 posted on 03/12/2003 8:07:01 AM PST by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, Zoolander)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Iron Eagle
I would not say that jury nullification is NEVER proper, but I am hard-pressed to think of a circumstance where it is trully appropriate.

Think harder.

One instance where it is practiced all the time is when the jury disagrees with the possible sentence.

Just curious, are you in the legal profession?

68 posted on 03/12/2003 8:07:35 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
Re: #43. Very nice explanation of the difference between jury nullification and the OJ case. But the whole argument is lost on the idjits here. They worhsip at the feet of the Police State.
69 posted on 03/12/2003 8:08:40 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Iron Eagle; Catspaw
I would not say that jury nullification is NEVER proper, but I am hard-pressed to think of a circumstance where it is trully appropriate.

In the 1800's, it was a crime to assist a runaway slave, or to hinder efforts by his owner to recapture him. These laws were approved by Congress and state legislatures.

A majority of the people at the time had no problem with the laws

But a minority had a big problem with them. Growing numbers decided to refuse to convict people aiding runaway slaves, to the point where the economics of slavery were affected

If you were on a jury in 1940, would you vote to convict someone for the crime of smuggling German Jews into the US in violation of immigration laws?

70 posted on 03/12/2003 8:10:47 AM PST by SauronOfMordor (Heavily armed, easily bored, and off my medication)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
I am not going to get into philosophicals since that's not the point. If you rape or assault my child, I am going to kill you, whether or not I feel you are a threat to me or them at the time I kill you. I believe this is a moral and proper action, and I would not find any parent guilty brought before me as a Juror on such a charge. They may be guilty as sin under the letter of the law, but no way morally I will convict.
71 posted on 03/12/2003 8:11:18 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
That was said tongue in cheek. You can never have too much levity on FR.
72 posted on 03/12/2003 8:12:35 AM PST by The FRugitive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
I would make a further example.

If you were on a jury in 1940, would you vote to convict someone for violating Jim Crow laws?

73 posted on 03/12/2003 8:12:57 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Hardly, asking about "jury nullification" is hardly fully answered by a statement simply acknowledging that it is legal and available option. To each their own.
74 posted on 03/12/2003 8:13:22 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Yes -- I am a trial lawyer. Defense mostly. (People forget that "trial lawyers" are not all plaintiff's lawyers.)

It is very rare that a jury will nullify a verdict due to sentencing. First, in most jurisdictions, juries do not give the sentence unless it is death. In those case, I agree that studies show some juries will opt for a lessor jurge, or at the sentencing phase, opt for the lesser sentence. I have seen this happen in two death penalty cases on which I sat in as a Law clerk to the proceeedings for the judge. Sadly, many jurisdictions won't even bring death penalty cases because juries improperly exercise there interpretation of the law,-- even though they swear not to do so in death penalty qualification proceedings. I suppose one could call that "jury nullification", but I think of jury nullification as the choice to aquit completely in total disregard of the factual evidence and the law.

Do juries make "practical" decsions and horse trade on charges or damages, I think they do that all the time. Thopse are pactices that can never be fixed, but I think they are far a field of true jury nullification. IMHO

75 posted on 03/12/2003 8:15:40 AM PST by Iron Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
Yep. And I think that everything after that statement falls under "opinion", which is irrelevant in my opinion.
76 posted on 03/12/2003 8:16:39 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
Would you convict if they killed an innocent person by mistake?
77 posted on 03/12/2003 8:17:08 AM PST by AppyPappy (Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: NYFriend
Either way, you can vote guilty or not, and you are not expected to offer any explanation.

Not necessarily. In the federal grand jury case in which I was a juror, following our *No bill* of a defendant who was a prisoner at a federal prison, who had been charged with *crimes* [violations of prison rules] for fighting back during a murder attempt on his life, shortly after he had filed a lawsuit in which he named the prison's warden as complicit in felony criminality, we were individually polled as to our *no true bill* and as to *whether we realized the consequences* by the judge. In my case, I told the judge that I expected that the consequences would probably mean another murder attempt against the defendant, and that if successful, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility should then consider our Assistant US Attorney as a probable criminal accomplice for charges that included a possible death penalty, as well as face a disbarment investigation for having solicited perjury in the judge's courtroom.

I didn't get a Christmas card from the fella that year, nor since.

-archy-/-

78 posted on 03/12/2003 8:19:23 AM PST by archy (Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Your job is not to interpret the law. It's to decide guilt or innocence of the charge.

This is so true. Jurors do not understand the power that they wield.


79 posted on 03/12/2003 8:20:19 AM PST by unixfox (Close the borders, problem solved !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The FRugitive
Today, the constitutions of only two states -- Maryland and Indiana -- clearly declare the nullification right, although two others -- Georgia and Oregon -- refer to it obliquely. The informed jury movement would like all states to require that judges instruct juries on their power to serve, in effect, as the final legislature of the land.

source

80 posted on 03/12/2003 8:20:23 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 441-452 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson