Jury nullification.

Isn't that like the second time you rested your case? Like in a day? Now I might not speak all that fancy Latin, but doesn't that mean you stop talking now? :p

Nice turn on the whole "administer mercy=lying" spin there. You sure you don't want to go back to lawyering?

But to answer your question.. if the only two choices on the plate are "lie to the court" or "assist in sending an otherwise innocent man to prison for defending his life/family" well.. that's an easy choice for me. Even easier if it's "lie to the court or send a man to his death for (carrying a weapon, owning the wrong book, having the wrong faith/etc etc etc)." You bet your sweet Yankee tuckus I'd lie.

Lying might be an evil, but in a choice between two evils, any person of conscience must choose the lesser.

Thankfully, it's a rare thing. Most truly evil laws don't get to the point we're talking about. Occasionally they do. And that's when people have the obligation to disobey them. In the streets, in the jury box, or from the rooftop.

-K
 
Quote:
"You are saying that the jury is ____ in not finding him guilty."

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
Click to expand...

I would tell you, but apparently my opinion holds negligible weight to you. What would be the point?

I asked a pretty simple question.

You fouled it off. Then you wondered over to the snack bar and ordered a "malum prohibitum" instead of playing the game at all.
 
In other words: Your giving up:D

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."
Click to expand...

Citation please. And one chance here...ya sure that quote is the state of the law? :)

WildbetitcomesfromsomepatriotwebsiteAlaska
 
Hey lets violate an oath:

Juror fined for violating oath
Site Map By Caren Benjamin
Review-Journal

A juror who caused a mistrial in a potential death penalty case was ordered Thursday to pay a $500 fine for violating her oath by allowing racial bias to influence her verdict.
After nearly three days of deliberations, the jury in the murder trial of 34-year-old Gregory Leonard declared itself hopelessly deadlocked Wednesday.
According to the jury foreman, 11 of the 12 panel members were ready to convict Leonard in connection with the January 1995 death of Tony Antee, whose body was found under Leonard's bed.
But one juror, 70-year-old Micheline Rodgers, refused to deliberate, other jurors said, because she didn't believe the state's key witness because he was Puerto Rican, and Puerto Ricans can't be trusted.
Jurors are instructed not to let their verdict be influenced by either sympathy or prejudice. Doing so is a violation of a juror's oath.
District Judge Nancy Becker called Rodgers and the foreman back to court the next day to find out if Rodgers had indeed violated the oath.
The woman hedged, saying at alternate times during the half-hour proceeding that she did, and then did not, refuse to deliberate because of her feelings about Puerto Ricans. She also said she volunteered to leave and allow an alternate juror to take her place.
Becker noted the cost of the mistrial exceeded $10,000 but said she did not feel it would be appropriate to make the woman bear that burden.
The judge also said she did not want to "chill the system" by punishing the woman with a criminal contempt of court citation, but that the woman must be made to answer for her actions.
Police found Antee's body when they went to question Leonard about the death of 64-year-old Tom Williams.
Leonard will stand trial Aug. 11 before District Judge Joseph Bonaventure in connection with the death of Williams.
Give us your FEEDBACK on this or any story.


WildnawthatneverhappensjusthonorablethingsfromfreepatriotsAlaska
 
No its not. If there is enough evidence to get pass the threshold of a JNOV then thats it.
Click to expand...

JNOV is either from the belief that there is insufficient facts on which to base the jury's verdict OR that the verdict did not correctly apply the law.

What do you mean "then that's it" ?
 
screw the law when it sends people to jail or prison, or fines them, simply for violating one of the government's many edicts.

I'm not talking about letting dangerous people roam the streets but I WILL NOT convict a person who has done no harm to someone else.
 
Hey lets violate an oath
Click to expand...

Totally irrelevant.

Maybe you can come up with something relating to Jury Nullification?

Surely if the state of law today is completely against it there must be many cases that would fit?

You've already said that the law is justice, which was great, a healthy chuckle was had by many.

Now, are you saying that when your personal morals and the law clash, the law always wins?


I dare you... say it. come on, you know you want to. "The law is great. The law is perfect. Questioning the law is blasphemy. The law always perfectly reflects society's morals. I can't make a moral decision without first looking it up in my book of local statutes and seeing what everyone else thinks"
 
Last edited:
I can't make it any clearer than that. I have no respect for a law that has no respect for our rights and freedoms.

Based on that, my actions need no further justification
 
Guess I'll take that as a "no idea" as to citation and "no idea" as to whether its the state of the law.
Click to expand...

I'm saying the source doesn't matter. It is what it is. Deal with it.

For all intensive purposes I am saying it.
 
Maybe only to thosew who think fibbing is a way of life
Click to expand...

See, the difference was she wasn't fibbing with moral justification. She wasn't defending herself thinking that it was "the right thing to do"

And, get this, there are like, DIFFERENT levels of morality! I know, that's just crazy talk!! :D
 
I disagree with the case that Alaska posted. JN or not, a jury has the right to consider anything. No matter the reason, a jury has the right to find any witness credible, or not credible. It doesn't matter if the person on the jury doesn't find a witness credible because he wears a red shirt- it is the jury's decision to make.

Anything else, and you might as well not have a trial.
 
I disagree with the case that Alaska posted. JN or not, a jury has the right to consider anything. No matter the reason, a jury has the right to find any witness credible, or not credible. It doesn't matter if the person on the jury doesn't find a witness credible because he wears a red shirt- it is the jury's decision to make.

Anything else, and you might as well not have a trial.
Click to expand...

A perfect example of people without the requisite knowledge making conclusions.

The jury ABSOLUTELY has the authority to find any witness credible or not. Witnesses present evidence. Evidence is used to find facts. The jury is the fact finder, so it goes without saying that they can believe or disbelieve a witness.

This has NOTHING to do with applying the law.

But back to my earlier point, should the jury consider the fact that a defendant is black and convict him on the basis that black people apredisposed to commit crimes? After all its the jury's decision to make.
 
But to answer your question.. if the only two choices on the plate are "lie to the court" or "assist in sending an otherwise innocent man to prison for defending his life/family"
Click to expand...

Thats a false dichotomy at best and a distortion of the facts in this case at worse.

All we have here is a man who is carrying in violation of the law. There is NO threat of deadly force against him. He's just cruising down the street minding his own business and get found out.

Whats the point of having a court system and more importantly a legislature if the law isn't going to be followed. A majority of your representatives got together and passed a law. You, a majority of one, are going to impose your will on the majority because you simply disagree. Of course you probably didn't bother to use the process set forth to overturn the law did you. Nope, you just decided to violate your end of the bargian because it suited you.

That is hypocracy. The government is supposed to not violate your rights, but its fine if you decide not to follow its laws.
 
oops, I think you posted in the wrong thread. In THIS thread, I don't think that people are advocating walking around ignoring laws and screw the consequences.


Interesting side point, can you point me to how I can get a definitive listing of all local, county, state, and federal statutes that apply to me? Not knowing the law is no defense against breaking it, but darned if I can't figure out what all the laws are! Maybe some money in creating a website where you put in a ZIP and up pop references to applicable government (of all levels) sites.

Side point to my side point.. realizing just how many people there are making laws over my personal jurisdiction, I am not sure calling them "my representative" is accurate.
 
Stage 2: How did I misunderstand the case? I said exactly the same thing you did.

SecDef- It is impossible for anyone to know the law. The federal laws alone (the CFR and the USC) take up over 30 feet of shelf space. That doesn't even count all of the court cases that modify those laws.

Call an attorney and ask his opinion on any given matter. He will have to look it up. If he doesn't know the law, how can anyone else?
 
Say uncle hunh?
Well, not yet.


Let's see what YOU have ignored, eh?

If all the jury was there for was to judge guilt or innocence alone, there would be no point to having a jury of your peers.

One judge could do that.
Click to expand...
status: ignored entirely


Each person must decide what is just, under their own conscience and understanding of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

status : "That is absolutely nonsensical."
No argument, no principles, no reasoning.
Just "that's stupid" and done with it.

Rhetorical genius, truly. :)


Implied argument of hypocricy when you referenced a quote ending with:
... then I promise you that everything else will have gotten so bad that its time to vote from the roof tops.
Click to expand...
and I replied:
but that would be illegal.
Click to expand...

So then, when do YOU think it's the right thing to do to break the law?
From your comments, it's somewhere between refusing to convict, and shooting people.
So where is that line?

status: ignored entirely


After you bring up the whole "Zyklon B" thing, lots of folks come up with some variant of

But what the Nazi's were doing was legal under the legal system of the time.
Click to expand...

status: "Waaah! People other than Me are referencing the Holocaust in an argument!
And by the way, this isn't Hitler's Germany"


(distilled) "okay, no Nazis. Selma"
Click to expand...
status: "selma is different"
Again, no argument, no reasoning, just "well that's different"

Superb argumentation. Truly.

After being called on it - "it's different because the laws fixed it"
(ignoring that the only reason it got to the courts in the first place was when "a lot of people brought the problem to national focus by Not obeying the law, because it was the right thing to do."



Well, enough back and forth. Time to get to the BIG philosophical issues behind all the petty stuff:

"You can't control human evil by passing laws. In fact, sometimes the evil people are the ones doing the controlling. "
Click to expand...

status: no response



"The difference is your way gets people killed or oppressed wholesale instead of in ones and twos. "
Click to expand...

status: ignored entirely, except for repeating the same ones and twos. Let's see.. Eric Rudolph twice, and now one chick who doesn't like Puerto Ricans.


Say Uncle?

Not hardly.


So far all I see are constant variations on the theme of "if the law says it's right, then it's right."

One reference to shooting from the rooftops which implies a deviation from that point of view, but no explanation as to what makes that different.

Along the way, we get enough ad hominems to fill a manure truck. But I guess as long as we ConcateAllOurInsultsAndSurroundThemWithAUserName they don't really count. :rolleyes:


So far, we have:


"evenhere" (From context - "You're a racist "internet commando")
"ellletsgetridoflawsalltogether" (You're an anarchist)
"fullyinformed" (You're ignorant)
"nowwhoserediculouslyoutoftouch" (Pretty much says itself)
"weedgunspornabortiongold..." (You're still an anarchist)
"oyeahanarchy" (You're STILL an anarchist (and I'm running low on insults))
"lielielie" (you're a dirty rotten liar)
falsusinunofalsusinomnibus (you're STILL a dirty rotten liar)
"falsusfalsusfalsus" (you're still a dirty rotten liar (and I'm running out of insults again))
"somenumbskullgunfreakaintzenger" (you don't know this history of what you claim, AND you're a numbskullgunfreak)

addlegalhistorytothecourseofstudy (you're ignorant)
civics (you're ignorant again)
youunderstand? (you're STILL ignorant)
lessons (you're STILL ignorant) (nah, not an insult, just insufferable smugness)

destroyingourwayoflifewiththissilliness (again pretty self explanatory)
betitcomesfromsomepatriotwebsite (back to the numbskullgunfreak)
nawthatneverhappensjusthonorablethingsfromfreepatriots (repeat above)


Meanwhile, ONCE I say "you know, this whole 'I'll vote to put someone to death because someone else passed a law saying it's okay' statement sure sounds awful kapo to me"

And the answer is "waaaaah! You're insulting my heritage and everyone who ever got whacked by them that was just following orders"

(by the way, why are you bothering to answer me if you've blocked my posts? :p )



So here's what I see:

On the personal side:
1. Enough insults thrown offhand to stink up a statehouse
2. Thin skin after throwing the first punch.
3. Insufferable smugness
4. Moral cowardice (admittedly that's just my judgment of the hypothetical 'guilty on the death case' tif we had a day or so ago, certainly a matter of opinion)

On the argumentation side:
1. Ignoring every argument that's inconvenient, especially the big ones of principle. Then accusing everyone else of doing the same.

If this is the best argument the legal profession can summon, It's no wonder jury shopping is an issue. And I'm not surprised that law and lawyers are held in increasingly lower esteem.

“The more corrupt the state, the more laws.”



At this point, seems to me we're just going in circles. Some of us say conscience must trump the law, some say the reverse. I don't see either of us changing on that.


And that's enough for tonight. Time to go have fun. :)




-K
 
That is hypocracy. The government is supposed to not violate your rights, but its fine if you decide not to follow its laws.
Click to expand...

And if the government violates your rights, is it incumbent on you to follow its laws?

The history of jury nullification in America arises from the colonial period when laws were imposed by the Crown and there was sometimes no recourse against unjust laws except through jury nullification. Within the framework of representative government, the justification for jury nullification largely evaporates. In rare circumstances, jury nullification remains a valuable mechanism to address flaws in the system (i.e. a faulty law that is in process of being revised).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top