Jury nullification.

invention_45

"Those laws are two more reasons than I had before to exercise my power of jury nullification to right an injustice if it comes down to it. To the defendant it's going to be very meaningful."
Click to expand...

Were you on a jury, you would be the type of juror that gives the other 11 in the room a serious case of the please-pass-the-barf-bag syndrome.
 
If I'm doing what is just then I really couldn't care much less what anyone else thinks.

Deadin, the point of JN is that it only takes one juror NOT to convict and. And at the very least that nullifies the law in that particular case.
 
Danzig

"the point of JN is that it only takes one juror NOT to convict and. And at the very least that nullifies the law in that particular case"
Click to expand...

Hardly. It just passes the responsibility on to someone else when the case is re-tried. It has no effect on the law WHATSOEVER.
 
Ok..point taken. Let me be specific. It nullifies the law in that particular trial.

But if it happens often enough then the law becomes essentially unenforceable.
 
Were you on a jury, you would be the type of juror that gives the other 11 in the room a serious case of the please-pass-the-barf-bag syndrome.
Click to expand...

That may well be. I'll buy the bags. I'm very very very good at finding a way around obstacles, and I consider the jury as the last wall that protects the people from the tyrrany of the majority.

I'll tell you right now that my attitude toward those who would come into my home and try to tell me what I can and can't do that affects nobody but me is that they can stick that idea where the sun don't shine. I will use every trick in the book to thwart such busybodies if I have a chance. And I'll enjoy every minute of it.

But thanks for pointing that out so I can come prepared with a raincoat.
 
Hardly. It just passes the responsibility on to someone else when the case is re-tried. It has no effect on the law WHATSOEVER.
Click to expand...

It doubles the expense of trying the case, and who knows? There might be another nullifier out there, especially if a reporter sticks a camera in my face after the mistrial.
 
Apparently it has been shown yet again that lawyers are only interested in the law, not justice. And they also confuse protocol with the law, too.

I've yet to so a coherent case against Jury Nullification..
I have seen:
- It will create anarchy (completely unsubstantiated claim)
- It would be violating an oath (which apparently is not important enough to prosecute against in the case of JN, so it is really more of a protocol)
- The founders didn't intend it (except they clearly knew about it. Quotes from Adams and Jay are ignored.. how convenient)
- and the worst: Currently, it is frowned upon in legal circles. (well, ok then, tail between MY legs, I had no idea, I should give a check to the ABA for this one)

What convincing argument can be given to convince me that there is NEVER a time when JN could bring justice to a case?
 
I consider the jury as the last wall that protects the people from the tyrrany of the majority.
Click to expand...

Say What:confused: I thought this was a country run by the majority, not the minority.

It would be violating an oath (which apparently is not important enough to prosecute against in the case of JN, so it is really more of a protocol)
Click to expand...

Maybe not prosecuted because it is virtually impossible to prove unless you brag about it.
 
addlegalhistorytothecourseofstudy
Click to expand...

This has only partly to do with history of any kind.

You have the POWER to nullify. That is because you have the POWER to think one thing and say another. Without the laws I have referred to, someone might be able to interrogate you and discover that you are doing so. But they can't.

Since laws seem to exist, and didn't just come into existence by accident, that protect you from such interrogation (once an actual juror), and that license you to know the penalty faced by a defendant, somebody, somewhere who had some pull must think that you, as a juror, are there to use information other than simply the facts and are entitled to do this without government interference.

It hardly seems likely that the government would pass laws that hamstring itself, so they must have been hemmed in by that pesky constitution.

Find me someone who claims to know even only all of Title 18 US Code. I'll call him a liar and put $1000 down that I can prove I'm right. And that's just a small fraction of the laws available for the government to clobber you with. There's no way to know what they all are, so even an honest person can't avoid doing criminal acts every day.

That is an intolerable state of affairs.

Fact is, there are people who like to control others, and they manage to get their wishes into law on a regular basis. I will resist those people whenever I find the opportunity to do so, and jury nullification is a way to do it. And, as a bonus, whether you opine so or not, it is built into the system.

Not only that, it's built into the system because it cannot be kept out. Decent people seeing tyrrany being carried out will simply lie their way to an acquittal or a hung jury.

You can point to all the legal history you want. Precedents are for judges, not for jurors.

Jury nullification is going to happen for the same reason a dog licks its private parts. Because it can.
 
Maybe not prosecuted because it is virtually impossible to prove unless you brag about it.
Click to expand...

Simple research (which the nullification crowd prefers not to do) shows that there has been prosecutions for "nullification"

Apparently it has been shown yet again that lawyers are only interested in the law, not justice.
Click to expand...

The law IS justice my friend. In no other civilization yet on this planet have folks been as well off and free as in ours...under the rule of law. Your smarmy comment hides the fact that your rights and lifestyle that you enjoy, unperfect as it may be to you based on whatever grievances you have against the world, are there for you due to lawyers development of the law.

The difference between chaos and civilzation is the rule of law.

Not under the rule of those who subtitute their own judgement for the societal one.

WildcheckoutRussiaAlaska
 
Say What I thought this was a country run by the majority, not the minority.
Click to expand...

It's really a representative government, run by the representatives. The majority elects the representatives by the content of their rhetoric (as seen on TV), then the reps go on to do whatever they please or whatever the PACs pay them to do.

I'm glad you mentioned that. A PAC contribution is no more than a bribe. So if you want to argue the morality of Jury Nullification, we'll have to discuss PACs along with it.

The constitution and BOR was written to, in part, strike a balance between what the majority thinks is good and the right of the minority to be free from persecution unless there's a clearly demonstrable good cause.

We can be polite and say that my jury nullification is a sneaky way to undermine your sneaky PACs. Or we can be rude and say my lying about why I will acquit or hang a jury is a sneaky way to undermine your sneaky bribes.

I'll leave you to choose which description you like.
 
Not under the rule of those who subtitute their own judgement for the societal one
Click to expand...

We who would nullify aren't under the illusion that we "rule" anything, and are satisfied with most laws and would not nullify them. We merely rescue victims of excessive busybodiness.
 
Quote:
I consider the jury as the last wall that protects the people from the tyrrany of the majority
Click to expand...
.

Say What I thought this was a country run by the majority, not the minority.
Click to expand...

deadin, you're thinking of a Democracy instead of a Republic. Definitely understandable since we're told we are a Democracy by the media every day.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
--Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

badbob
 
We can be polite and say that my jury nullification is a sneaky way to undermine your sneaky PACs. Or we can be rude and say my lying about why I will acquit or hang a jury is a sneaky way to undermine your sneaky bribes.
Click to expand...

I guess the only way I can answer your insinuation is to state that I have never contributed to a PAC (other than the NRA), so you can't blame me for being a sneaky PAC. So what can I call you for intentionally lying through voir dire with intention of nullifing a jury.
 
Go to: http://www.juryduty.org/ for more information on jury nullification.

badbob
Click to expand...

Bob, the reason that no member of the bar takes these organizations seriously is that they are never truthful. This website makes it seem because of that little snippet from an older version of the TX constitution jury nullification is an express right.

It not. The TX legislature has already passed laws, that the supreme court has already ruled on, which make jury nullification expressly prohibited. Your website omits this because they know its tha case.

As with everything in life, people who don't bring all of the facts to the table are usually wrong.
 
While better than arbitrary government, the rule of law does not ensure justice.
Click to expand...

Again using Nazi germanyu as an example thereby illustrating total lack of understanding of the term "rule of law"

WildcivicsAlaska
 
We merely rescue victims of excessive busybodiness.
Click to expand...

Gimme a break.

Even better, give me a concrete example of some VERIFIABLE prosecutions where you think nullification is or was appropriate within the past say 10 years.


WildcomeonAlaska
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top