Jury nullification.

But if it happens often enough then the law becomes essentially unenforceable.
Click to expand...

Hardly. If the law is validy passed, the DA is going to go after as many people as he can. I'd be surprised if jury nullification was ever responsible for getting a law overturned.

Like I said before. This isn't some majestic check agaisnt the government. When the jury is hung, they are going to do it all over again. The sad irony about that is the fact that the government has endless resources and the defendant likely does not.

The idea that because someone nullifys in a single case the law is then enforcable is totally ridiculous and only demonstrates your ignorance of the system.
 
Again using Nazi germanyu as an example thereby illustrating total lack of understanding of the term "rule of law"
Click to expand...
If so, I am sure you are quite capable of providing a succinct explanation rather than trying to avoid the issue.

If you are offended by the suggestion that Germany in the inter-war years reflects a failure of the rule of law to equate to justice, please feel free to substitute the United States circa 1950.

Again, the law reflects the continuing search for justice. Unless you believe the law has achieved perfection, your absolute statement that "The law IS justice" is inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
Stage, I don't argue that jury nullification is going to overturn a law, all it can do is cause a hung jury and lead to a retrial. But what if, for example, someone had voted not guilty in the case of BP agents Compean and Remos. They were given what amounts to a death sentence for the crimes they were convicted of. A lot of things have come out, that were withheld from the jury, that probably would have changed the whole trial. Meanwhile these men are in prison with illegal aliens that they helped put there. Ramos has already been severely beaten and both men will probably die long before the appeals process gets the case retried. If the jury had been told the whole story or been told of the mandatory, I think it's 10 years, sentence, the results, hopefully, would have been much different. There has to be something that prevents overly harsh sentences from being given. If there is another way besides jury nullification or a fully informed jury, tell us what it is.

badbob
 
If you are offended by the suggestion that Germany in the inter-war years reflects a failure of the rule of law to equate to justice, please feel free to substitute the United States circa 1950.
Click to expand...

Your kidding me right?

WildrightAlaska
 
There has to be something that prevents overly harsh sentences from being given. If there is another way besides jury nullification or a fully informed jury, tell us what it is.
Click to expand...

Umm.... better laws?
 
Your kidding me right?
Click to expand...

No, but you are still avoiding an answer. As a convenience for you, I have made the substitution below:
Society seeks to consistently achieve justice through the law. While better than arbitrary government, the rule of law did not ensure justice in the United States in 1950.
Click to expand...

You said "The law IS justice."

Did the "rule of law" (=justice) exist in the United States in 1950?
 
f the jury had been told the whole story or been told of the mandatory, I think it's 10 years, sentence, the results, hopefully, would have been much different. There has to be something that prevents overly harsh sentences from being given. If there is another way besides jury nullification or a fully informed jury, tell us what it is.
Click to expand...

What is with you guys? Do you understand HOW the jury system works? Overly harsh sentences are NOT the province of the jury unless the power to impose is given by statute (death)...the remedies for "harsh sentences" are (at least Federally) Rule 35s (if my rule memory is correct) and appeals.

Fully informed jury? They are not supposed to be "fully informed"...they are supposed to consider what they consider under the rules, not matters extraneous to their function.

Look...back when the KB or QB was imposing death for the theft of a pound, it was well recognized that the jury would often, in the case of minor or widow or other sympathetic creature, find as a fact that the theft was only of a shilling, making the penalty a mere transportation for life. It is well recognized that the jury is the sole FINDER OF FACT....the jury as the finder of fact has the POWER to fit its findings within the law as given, thats why there are lesser included offenses in many trial...

Here are basic examples for you; The rapist of daddy's little girl is out on bail. Daddy "lies in wait" for the skell and shoots him in the head. He is indicted for Murder 2. The prosecutor, being smart, also indicts Murder 3, man 1, Man 2 knowing full well that all or nothings in criminal cases are frequentlly the fount of bad press. Jury hears evidence and convicts of Man2...a far lesser crime than murder 2...

Is this jury nullification?

No. Its within the province of the jury to determine that the facts fit legal scenario "X".

On the other hand, it's jury nullifcation for the jurors to say...Hey wait, we shouldnt convict this guy at all because we think the LAW that would punish this killer is bad....that is NOT within their power, and do do so is to USURP power...and any usurpation of power is bad....

If you guys can't see the difference AND the danger then you really should run and take a few more classes.

Wildgettingclearernow?Alaska
 
At the end of the day, those of you who support jury nullification even in the face of direct instructions of the judge, and other statutory direction, open the door for people to convict based on things other than the evidence. As with everything else in the law this is a double edged sword.

If you have a case where there is enough evidence to get past the appeals process, but not enough for reasonable doubt, by stating that the jury has the right to judge the law you have just made it possible to "hang whitey" or "hang darkie" as the case may be.

If its your right to ignore the law and judge according to your moral code, then you have no argument when the racist, bigot, or xenophobe does the same. After all, its their right:rolleyes:


Stagewhydoeseverybodyfeeltheneedtocopywild2
 
WA: Here are basic examples for you; The rapist of daddy's little girl is out on bail. Daddy "lies in wait" for the skell and shoots him in the head. He is indicted for Murder 2. The prosecutor, being smart, also indicts Murder 3, man 1, Man 2 knowing full well that all or nothings in criminal cases are frequentlly the fount of bad press. Jury hears evidence and convicts of Man2...a far lesser crime than murder 2...

Is this jury nullification?

No. Its within the province of the jury to determine that the facts fit legal scenario "X".
Click to expand...

That's a fine example. Let's roll with it. Let's stipulate that the facts in the case are exactly as you presented it.

What if the prosecutor wasn't smart and only indicted with Murder 2? (which is not unheard of)

You are saying that the jury is ____ in not finding him guilty.

What word or phrase would you say fills in the ______ ?



* I'm confused by your use of murder 2 and not murder 1 especially with the "lies in wait" in quotes as a cue. You can change it to match what you mean. Can you clarify?
 
At the end of the day, those of you who support jury nullification even in the face of direct instructions of the judge, and other statutory direction, open the door for people to convict based on things other than the evidence. As with everything else in the law this is a double edged sword.
Click to expand...

Absolutely it is a double edged sword. That is why one edge is tempered by the judge's ability to set aside a guilty verdict.

Does this let in the possibility of a racist jury letting KKK members off scott free? Yes. However, that is a potential price to pay for the ability to administer mercy.. the other edge.
 
I'm confused by your use of murder 2 and not murder 1 especially with the "lies in wait" in quotes as a cue. You can change it to match what you mean. Can you clarify?
Click to expand...

Just my peculiar legal background, in many states Murder 1 is reserved for cops, firefighters etc

What if the prosecutor wasn't smart and only indicted with Murder 2? (which is not unheard of)
Click to expand...

Its highly unlikely, further, most states permit the defendant to request that lesser included offenses be considered (like manslaughter). Furthermore, the defense would put the emotional state of the defendant in issue, thereby AUTOMATICALLY triggering lesser offenses

You are saying that the jury is ____ in not finding him guilty.
Click to expand...

You tell me. Since culpable mental states (mens rea) are essential elemenmts of malum in se crimes, the jury is always going to be able to "show mercy" to a defendat on the basis of fact applied to law, rather than the blanket invalidation of law.

Now on the other hand, in malum prohibitum offenses where mens rea may not be an issue, the matter is trickier.

WildlessonsAlaska



"A person is guilty of Murder in the 2nd degree
 
However, that is a potential price to pay for the ability to administer mercy.. the other edge.
Click to expand...

Adminsiter mercy? You mean commit a crime and at the very least, a slap in the face of the system.

Back to my earlier question....You think its OK to lie to the Court about your intentioons.

Lie.
To.
A Court.

Lie.

Thats what you are advocating.

Lying.

Bet ya aint got the cojones to admit it. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus I reckon.

WilddestroyingourwayoflifewiththissillinessAlaska
 
Hardly. If the law is validy passed, the DA is going to go after as many people as he can. I'd be surprised if jury nullification was ever responsible for getting a law overturned.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. However, I'm also more concerned about a particular case. Each one is different and needs to be decided individually and argued uniquely.

The law *is* rigid, and slow to change. Laws are on the books that make no sense to apply to today's world. And the process to reverse a bad law is long (as it should be). However, there also needs to be a way to say "hey, this law shouldn't apply to this situation at all, but it is worded such that it does, and we need justice NOW."

The fact that the defense has limited funds vs the gov't means that it is just that much harder to pursue "justice" through the appeals process, even if everyone agrees!
 
I have no problem with saying up front that it would mean violating the oath. Nothing to do with cajones, it has to do with balancing what that violation would mean relative to following the letter of the law and its implications to the defendant. That is clearly a moral decision that I need to make.

I don't even have a problem with the oath as it helps you guys ensure that it is even less likely that JN would occur all willy nilly (obviously not a position I support).
Lie.
To.
A Court.
Click to expand...
This argument lacks substance, and is purely emotional appeal. Feel free to correct this quoted response if you feel it is in error:

"Neither the tradition nor the wording of the oath administered to the jurors, on the other hand, is so dictated. In federal court it is not even prescribed by statute. It is simply an old tradition judges have made up. If the wording of the oath poses some conflict with the jury's constitutional prerogative to nullify, it is clear which one must yield the right of way. Courts simply have no business (much less lawful authority) asking jurors to swear to anything that would violate the Constitution or the jury's deeply held convictions about justice."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top