Jury nullification

[Gonad the Barbarian]

A lot of threads get posted here regarding miscarriages of justice as a result of convictions on bad and misapplied laws. Such miscarriages likely far outnumber those that actually become newsworthy. Jurors in such cases often feel that doing their duties as described by the court resulted injustice rather than justice. Court officials are barred from informing jurors of jury nullification. Jurors are even technically required to notify judges if jury nulifcation comes up in deliberation, and the judge can remove certain jurors as a result.

Jury nullification is the last protection as citizens against a tyranical government. The ultimate safeguard in a government that's supposed to be by the people and for the people. Yet it's treated like some dirty little secret or radical idea that should never see the light of honest and open discussion. Sure it has resulted in some poor outcomes, mostly in the racist south of years ago, but it also played a major part in getting prohibition repealed and prevented many slaves that had escaped to the north from being returned to their southern slave owners.

Is jury nullification not discussed in shool anymore? I hardly ever see it come up in the media either. Why aren't we making a bigger deal of this power we have? Why aren't we excercising it more? It's at the very foundation of the idea of getting JUSTICE from a trial by jury, yet with all the poorly written, outdated, and sometimes flat out stupid laws being imposed on the population it is hardly ever invoked.

 

[bullbert]

Psst. Senator Feinstein? Madam, we have a situation. Gonad needs to be dealt with. Hmm. What was that you said? At midnight, you say? His entire household, you say? The usual "cattle" transport to Gitmo, you say? Yes, Senator, right away.

 

[dmcowen674]

Because it is a money driven system.

That greed has destroyed any possibility of justice.

Look at the kid in Georgia for example.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Is it such an absurd idea that the validy of the law be questioned each time it's used to incarcerate someone? Is this something that people really need to be instructed on? I understand why the powers that be don't want this to come up, as it means less power for them and more power for the unwashed masses they preside over, but why aren't us lowly peasants keeping ourselves aware of it?

 

[K1052]

Jury nullification was never taught in my HS (and I went to a pretty good one). The vast majority of people today have never heard of it and wouldn't have the slightest idea that it rests within their power. This is of course intentional since the justice system and legislature wouldn't like something as unimportant as the actual will of the people or logic/sense to come to bear on how they structure society.

I would have no moral problem sitting on a jury and deciding to nullify if I think it is warranted. Drug cases (non-violent) stand out predominantly in my mind. You have to watch it though, if you lead on that your intention is to nullify you can be thrown off the jury. I'd simply hang the jury if they won't agree to acquit.

 

[jrenz]

If you start encouraging jury nullification, you open up the possibility that more and more verdicts will be rendered on sympathies and emotions rather than law, and that can lead to some dangerous precedents. Yes, there are time when it is appropriate, but I don't think it is something that should necessarily be encouraged. There are better ways to get the laws changed.

Originally posted by: bullbert
Psst. Senator Feinstein? Madam, we have a situation. Gonad needs to be dealt with. Hmm. What was that you said? At midnight, you say? His entire household, you say? The usual "cattle" transport to Gitmo, you say? Yes, Senator, right away.

Ok?

Drug cases (non-violent) stand out predominantly in my mind.

Most cases like the ones you speak of as examples, don't even make it to trial.

 

[BoberFett]

Actually jury nullification is the third protection, not the last.

"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt

 

[fskimospy]

Uhmm, the jury can be made aware of this by the defense. If counsel is not doing this, then they are maybe doing a poor job of representing their client.

Generally though, both sides want the jury to be as ignorant as possible of the law. If you look at jury selection, you will see that it is extremely rare for lawyers (or other people with considerable legal knowledge) to be put on the jury because the prosecution and the defense don't want people with an air of authority about the law messing with their cases. They like 'em stupid.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Since U.S. v. Moylan (1969) and U.S. v. Dougherty (1972) the defense can no longer bring up jury nullification.

 

[IronWing]

Jury nullification was dumped for a reason. It is a terrible idea. If you don't like a law get together with like minded folks and elect reps to change it. Jury nullification is what allowed lynch mobs to act with impunity.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Jury nullification was dumped for a reason. It is a terrible idea. If you don't like a law get together with like minded folks and elect reps to change it. Jury nullification is what allowed lynch mobs to act with impunity.

Take the case of the 17 year old boy who is doing 10 years in prison for an act that is done by millions of other teens. The law and the conviction are completely and totally insane. They are insane because most people are insane when it comes to their children and their feelings about rape and consensual sex. We have, because of irrational emotion, made the case that if a minor is too young to legally consent than any sex they have is rape. That is completely and totally nuts. It is society in the form of its laws that has become the lynch mob. Year by year we increase the penalties and definitions of crime and lock more and more people away. We have gone our of our minds with fear. There is nothing legislatures can do to vote down new laws like this because they always carry names that sound like they will save us. We in our fear have created a legal nightmare. Woe to him who stands up and tells you what cowards we have become. Woe to him who raises his hand against insane vengeance.

 

[IGBT]

..I have a small handbook on it. As I recall JN brought about the end of prohibition because juries would no longer convict based on existing law. There was wide spread belief among the population that anti liquor laws were wrong.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ironwing
Jury nullification was dumped for a reason. It is a terrible idea. If you don't like a law get together with like minded folks and elect reps to change it. Jury nullification is what allowed lynch mobs to act with impunity.

Take the case of the 17 year old boy who is doing 10 years in prison for an act that is done by millions of other teens. The law and the conviction are completely and totally insane. They are insane because most people are insane when it comes to their children and their feelings about rape and consensual sex. We have, because of irrational emotion, made the case that if a minor is too young to legally consent than any sex they have is rape. That is completely and totally nuts. It is society in the form of its laws that has become the lynch mob. Year by year we increase the penalties and definitions of crime and lock more and more people away. We have gone our of our minds with fear. There is nothing legislatures can do to vote down new laws like this because they always carry names that sound like they will save us. We in our fear have created a legal nightmare. Woe to him who stands up and tells you what cowards we have become. Woe to him who raises his hand against insane vengeance.

I agree there are assinine laws on the books that are ruining people's lives for no purpose. There is also a mechanism for changing those laws - stop voting for the morons who passed them. Jury nullification subverts all laws, good and bad.

 

[mc00]

I did jury duty(NYC) for first time like 2 years ago(I have to wait 4 year to get into the poll again) and I knew about Jury nullification, and there were pre-screening the judge /lawyers gave out like question papers asking what kind of book I read and what kind of music etc.. I mention I do a lot research on political like constitution and bill of rights etc.. judge/lawyers ask few question and I didn't know, knowing about Jury nullification would get you not picked so I open my mouth so I didn't get picked.. so next time I will keep my mouth shut... basically they want you find people quality not quality solely on Evidence not consciences. so they try to find jurors don't know much about constitution/bill of rights or is not too knowledgeable..

 

[D22]

it only subverts them if someone nullifies. of a jury of 12, if a law is so just then it will not be nullified.

the jury did not even know that they were putting genarlow wilson away for 10 years. some of the jurors even came forward saying if they had known the punishment they would have never convicted him.

JUSTIFY THAT

Another thing is that jury SELECTION should not be allowed. that is disenfranchising those because of beliefs or knowledge when last time i checked they have equal rights under the constitution, and voting rights, as anyone else. the entire concept of a jury being cherry picked is what is ASSININE

 

[PokerGuy]

I know if I was on a jury and felt the law was stupid or unjust, I would simply refuse to convict. I wouldn't say anything about nullification, I'd simply say "I don't think the defendant is guilty". Done. No unanimous verdict = no conviction.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: mc00
I did jury duty(NYC) for first time like 2 years ago(I have to wait 4 year to get into the poll again) and I knew about Jury nullification, and there were pre-screening the judge /lawyers gave out like question papers asking what kind of book I read and what kind of music etc.. I mention I do a lot research on political like constitution and bill of rights etc.. judge/lawyers ask few question and I didn't know, knowing about Jury nullification would get you not picked so I open my mouth so I didn't get picked.. so next time I will keep my mouth shut... basically they want you find people quality not quality solely on Evidence not consciences. so they try to find jurors don't know much about constitution/bill of rights or is not too knowledgeable..

Maybe they didn't pick you because you can't form a coherent thought.

Another thing is that jury SELECTION should not be allowed. that is disenfranchising those because of beliefs or knowledge when last time i checked they have equal rights under the constitution, and voting rights, as anyone else. the entire concept of a jury being cherry picked is what is ASSININE

You do realize that the defense, as well as the prosecution, gets to screen jurors? This is to ensure that both sides are satisfied with the impartiality of the jurors.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ironwing
I agree there are assinine laws on the books that are ruining people's lives for no purpose. There is also a mechanism for changing those laws - stop voting for the morons who passed them. Jury nullification subverts all laws, good and bad.

No it doesn't, it has to be reapplied on a case by case basis while laws require years, decades or even longer to change if it's even possible.

If laws are so easily changed, why does the federal government consistently go against the will of it's citizens?

 

[IGBT]

"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty."
(1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267)

"Jury nullification of law," as it is sometimes called, is a traditional right that was rigorously defended by America's Founding Fathers. Those great men, Patriots all, intended the jury to serve as a final safeguard ? a test that laws must pass before gaining sufficient popular authority for enforcement. Thus the Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power ? representatives, senate, executive, judges ? and finally juries. Each enactment of law must pass all these hurdles before it gains the authority to punish those who may choose to violate it.

Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."









Text


John Adams eloquently argued the case, chastising Parliament for depriving Americans of their right to trial by jury. Adams later said of the juror, "it is not only his right, but his duty ? to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." (Yale Law Journal, 1964:173)

 

[jonks]

Forget that as a juror you take an oath to uphold the law. Nullify? Congratulations, your word means nothing.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ironwing
I agree there are assinine laws on the books that are ruining people's lives for no purpose. There is also a mechanism for changing those laws - stop voting for the morons who passed them. Jury nullification subverts all laws, good and bad.

No it doesn't, it has to be reapplied on a case by case basis while laws require years, decades or even longer to change if it's even possible.

If laws are so easily changed, why does the federal government consistently go against the will of it's citizens?

What's going on is that laws are never changed.

What they are doing is writing a new law to append an existing law or they think is overriding it.

This law in Georgia is a good example where they just threw in a "Romeo and Juliet" clause as they call it but the law still exists.

The fact that the legislature recognized how the law they wrote was being used wrong and they passed a new law to correct that shows how twisted and perverted the system has become as Moonie said.

The laws are the lynch mob.

The fact that the AG refused to retroactively apply the corrected law to Genarlow shows that he as well as everyone connected to law has no intentions for justice.

Their intentions are twisted, perverted and sick.

The fact you see so many people in here support that sickness shows very little hope for this country.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Forget that as a juror you take an oath to uphold the law. Nullify? Congratulations, your word means nothing.

Yes, but shouldn't the duty of a Juror be to render a just verdict? As we have seen many times, the law and justice aren't always the same thing.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Forget that as a juror you take an oath to uphold the law. Nullify? Congratulations, your word means nothing.

Nullification is part of our law.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Forget that as a juror you take an oath to uphold the law. Nullify? Congratulations, your word means nothing.

Such, an oath should be illegal. And people should refuse to give it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The fact that the AG refused to retroactively apply the corrected law to Genarlow shows that he as well as everyone connected to law has no intentions for justice.

That AG should be physically taken out of his office and dragged into the street. What happens after that I'm not at liberty to comment on.