Juries and Power

[Joel Harmon]

Sorry that this is not related to firearms but this is bothering me. I just got off the phone with my cousin. She is taking the bar exam in two months and has recently completed her graduate law degree at William and Mary college.

I asked her if she learned in school that juries can nullify a law if they find that the law is unconstitutional. I have heard from numerous sources on the web that this is the case. She says it is not the case and only a judge can eliminate an unconstitutional law. She then said (and I knew this) that juries can find a defendant not guilty and the judge can then nullify the jury if he has reason to believe that there is no way a jury in their right mind could come to this conclusion. This is called Jury Nullification.

Hypothetical Case: There is a specific law against having a shotgun barrel under a certain length. If someone is tried as a criminal for sawing off their barrel, the jury could find that the person is not guilty because they believe this to be a stupid, pointless law. The judge could then say "based on the evidence presented, there is no way the jury could find this person not guilty of sawing off his shotgun to under XYZ inches. Therefore I, the judge, will sentence the citizen". The jury cannot say "we the jury find this law to be unconstitutional and therefore order it be stricken".

What about all this talk on the web that a jury has all this power? Is it just talk or is there truth to it? Why would these people be wasting their time if it wasn't true??? http://www.fija.org/juror-handbook.htm

You then have to ask yourself: What use is a jury of your peers if a communist judge decides he has a "hard on" AGAINST you and nullifies the juries verdict!?!

Thanks,

Joel

 

[DannyO]

I am not a lawyer and don't claim to be an expert but my understanding is that a judge would only use that power when he deems that no jury , hearing the evidence presented could come to that decision. It is supposed to be used in cases where the evidence might be technical or scientific. I'm not trying to defend judges or their rulings just hoping to shed a little light on the subject.

As for juries being able to make law. I don't see it. They may set a precident in a case but I don't think they change anything that is a law during a case unless the case was actually about the law. Does that make sence? I guess what I'm trying to say is that if your charged with something the juries job is to determine if you are guilty of that crime. For them to change a law there would have to be a case where the law was being challenged not a person.

------------------
"Some people spend an entire liftime wondering if they made a difference. Marines don't have that problem."
Semper Fi

 

[folkbabe]

My understanding is that a jury can choose to find a defendent not guilty because it believes the law to be wrong but this wouldn't actually remove the law. In other words, the particular defendent would get off but the law would still remain for other cases. However, judges usually don't allow lawyers to let juries know that they can do this because it undermines the court system (supposedly).

As far as judges overturning verdicts, I didn't know they were able to do that if the jury had found the person not guilty. They are allowed, and frequently do, order juries to find a particular defendent guilty. For example, if you were trying to make a principled stand against a law and admitted to breaking it the judge would likely "order" the jury to find you guilty since you admitted to breaking the law. For the jury to do otherwise is what I call jury nullification.

 

[Dennis]

I recommend the following site: www.fija.org

Specifically, I recommend this page: www.fija.org/abbrhope.html

Note also the following TFL threads:

Does the Jury have the last word? http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=22574

On Jury Duty and Tort Reform http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=25495

The term “Jury Nullification” means the jury can nullify a law. The term does not
mean the judge can nullify a jury.

Eventually, the archives will return to us. Do a search for "jury nullification" in the Legal and Political archive and i believe you will find several long and detailed threads on what has been taken away from us as citizens.

(Yes, I'm still angry about it....)

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited June 26, 2000).]

 

[Coinneach]

Some blindingly simple points to jury nullification:

1) If all that is required of jurors is a decision on whether the accused actually committed the crime of which he is accused, then we could do away with juries altogether. A computer could make the decision.

2) Jury nullification places ultimate control over the judicial system where it belongs: in the hands of the people. Without it, we're right back to the bad old days where a troika of ill-tempered old farts could sentence people to death for failure to respect the Crown.

What's so freakin' hard about this?