Jury nullification.

The bottom line:

1. Juuries are sole judges of the facts, the Court is sole judge of the law.

2. If you swear an oath as a juror and then violate that oath by rendering yoiur verdict on matters other than what you are obligated to consider you are no better than the guy in the dock before you.


Get over it guys. This isnt the world where the hardy frontiersman was a law unto himself. Its 2007, we have a working constituion and laws and you are obligated to follow them, dumb as they may be, until the Courts get rid of them.

WildsicklyAlaska
 
2. If you swear an oath as a juror and then violate that oath by rendering yoiur verdict on matters other than what you are obligated to consider you are no better than the guy in the dock before you.
Click to expand...

Looks like it's those guys on the docs before (I'm assuming you refer to the judge) us who, in the past, took away our explicit jury nullification rights. So I'm not in any contest to be as good as they are. I intend to be BETTER.

If you are referring to the defendant, well then convicting him of a stupid law doesn't make you any better than him.

Fact is, the jury has no option other than to consider the totality (to their knowledge) of the case before them. In their private deliberations, they are going to consider EVERYTHING, including whether they like the law or not. If they have any brains (which the court counts on them not having), they will not only reject the condemnation of another person for breaking a stupid law, but will be able to convince other jurors to do the same without tipping them that jury nullification is being used.

Tell me how it is that you are going to stop a juror from doing this once he's past voir dior.
 
Come to Indiana

Indiana Constitution

Art. 1, Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.
 
[QUOTEJury nullification has nothing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to do with the OJ verdict, at least if the jurors themselves can be believed.

][/QUOTE]

Key information is, "if the jurors thmeselves can be believed."

The OJ jurors were all ignorant, uneducated dolts. Only one of the jurors had ever heard of DNA prior to the trial. Those dumbasses couldn't have survived in their neighborhoods, if they'd have found OJ guilty.

OF COURSE, IT WAS JURY NULLIFICATION!
 
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source
Main Entry: jury nullification
Function: noun
: the acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact

"contrary to the jury's findings of fact"

What does "contrary to the jury's findings of fact" mean to you? Read what you paste danzig.
 
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source
Main Entry: jury nullification
Function: noun
: the acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact
NOTE: Jury nullification is most likely to occur when a jury is sympathetic toward a defendant or regards the law under which the defendant is charged with disfavor. Except for a statutory requirement to the contrary, a jury does not have to be instructed on the possibility of jury nullification.
Click to expand...



"contrary to the jury's findings of fact"

What does "contrary to the jury's findings of fact" mean to you? Read what you paste danzig.
Click to expand...

The "note" under the definition looks like it explains it pretty well, IMO.

badbob
 
Stage 2, are you saying then that the Zenger case means nothing? Do you contend then that the citizens are NOT the final arbiters of the law? That the government can pass any law it pleases and so long as the judiciary arbitrarily decides that the law does not violate the letter of the Constitution and that We The People have no say in the matter?
Click to expand...

No. The citizens are NOT the final arbiter of the law. If the legislature passes a law and the judiciary decides its constitutional THEN ITS A VALID LAW. Thas how our system works and is been doing that since 1834, and is probably what the framers intended in the first place.

People have a say in the matter by having the power to elect or not elect certain representatives. Thats the whole point of a representative government.

You aren't going to find a case that says "its the job of the jury to judge both the law and the facts". Every single freaking case says the opposite. "Its the judge's duty to decide the law and the jury's job to decide the facts. But given our system the jury we can't stop the jury from considering the law"

This is a complete rebuke of the idea that jury nullification is a fundamental right. Since no one has a fundmental right to be a juror in the first place, its ridiculous to state that you have a fundamental right to do something on a jury.

Its a byproduct. Thats all. You can nullify to your hearts content but don't sit there and think you are participating in some grand tradition. Quite honestly as Wild pointed out you will be violating your oath that you took.
 
Looks like it's those guys on the docs before (I'm assuming you refer to the judge) us who, in the past, took away our explicit jury nullification rights. So I'm not in any contest to be as good as they are. I intend to be BETTER.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see where the "right" of jury nullification was explicitly stated anywhere.
 
What does "contrary to the jury's findings of fact" mean to you? Read what you paste danzig.
Click to expand...

I know my name isn't Danzig, but it means that if a jury finds that this man is in fact guilty of violating the law, they have the right to nullify it by declaring that man not guilty. This is a legal right. It does not mean the jury decides to let child molestors go or cold blooded killers roam the streets, but it is about for instance if a man was doing the right thing but had to violate a law to do it the jury can nullify the law and set him free. OR if the law is unjust and is not serving justice in the eyes of the jury, the jury has the legal right to nullify that law and set the man free.

No. The citizens are NOT the final arbiter of the law. If the legislature passes a law and the judiciary decides its constitutional THEN ITS A VALID LAW. Thas how our system works and is been doing that since 1834, and is probably what the framers intended in the first place.
Click to expand...

As has been quoted over and over throughout this post, that is not what the Founders said such as John Jay and John Adams

John Adams said of jurors: "It is not only his right but also 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."

First Chief Justice of the US John Jay wrote: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".
Click to expand...

For those of you who don't believe in or are against such a right let me pose this scenario:

You are a a juror selected in a criminal case in which a man was caught carrying a concealed handgun and did not have the state's permission to do so (he didn't have a license). The facts of the case when all is said and done tell you that this man has technically violated the law. He is now facing a 10 year prison sentence. Are you, with your belief in the RTKBA, going to send him off to suffer 10 years in prison?
 
This is a legal right
Click to expand...

Not its not, and in some states the court will boot jurors who they find are doing this. Its simply a natural factor of having a free jury system.

Reapeat after me, its not a right, its not a right.
 
You are a a juror selected in a criminal case in which a man was caught carrying a concealed handgun and did not have the state's permission to do so (he didn't have a license). The facts of the case when all is said and done tell you that this man has technically violated the law. He is now facing a 10 year prison sentence. Are you, with your belief in the RTKBA, going to send him off to suffer 10 years in prison?
Click to expand...

Yes. Absolutely yes. If you want the laws to change then do it at the ballot box, or challenge the law in court.
 
+1 Doug. Thanks for chiming in for me. I'm sitting in class right now and I only get to look at this thread for about five minutes every hour or so.

Former Presidents of the United States and former Supreme Court Chief Justices have made it clear that jury nullification is a right. If it was a right then, it is a right now. Just because the government tries to take those rights away or impede their exercise, that does not mean that the right does not exist..or..if the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow do some of you honestly believe that we would not longer have the right to keep and bear arms?

Point in contention: Rights are not granted by government so they cannot be taken away by government no matter what judge or politician says. The government can do everything within it's ability to infringe upon those rights..but that does not mean that the right itself does not exist.
 
EXACTLY! As Constitutional Historian Dr. John Eidsmoe put it, If rights are something that the government can give and take away then they aren't really rights at all they are just privileges that the state can give or take away at a whim.

Yet there are people today that say things like "The Constitution gives me the right to free speech" or "gives me the right to carry a gun." The Constitution doesn't give you anything. It it is supposed to protect Rights that already exist. It's supposed to serve as a check and keep the Federal Government from violating the basic liberties of life.
 
Not its not, and in some states the court will boot jurors who they find are doing this. Its simply a natural factor of having a free jury system.
Click to expand...

How, exactly, does a court boot a juror after a verdict's rendered? Jurors have the absolute right to come to any conclusion that they wish in a criminal case. (Except that they can't find a person guilty of a crime for which that person hasn't been charged.) All a judge can do is instruct the jury on the judge's interpretation of the law. The jury can either accept the judge's interpretation or do some interpreting of their own.
 
Not its not, and in some states the court will boot jurors who they find are doing this. Its simply a natural factor of having a free jury system.
Click to expand...

...and you as an expelled juror can tell your story to the press and the defense about how this judge supressed your vote and verdict. It's simply a natural factor of having a free press and free association system... :D
 
Sorry I am joining so late, but I can think of a few cases where JN was employed. Jury nullification is a de facto power of the jury, and is not accurately described as a right.

In 1670, William Penn was arrested for illegally preaching a Quaker sermon. Despite the fact that the judge demanded a guilty verdict and that preaching the sermon was illegal, the jury in that case acquitted Penn and was subsequently imprisoned, fined, and kept for three days without food or water as a result. Four jurors refused to pay the fine, and one, Edward Bushnell, obtained a writ of habeas corpus. Chief Justice Vaughn, sitting on the highest court in England, discharged the writ, released them, and called the power to punish a jury "absurd".

John Peter Zenger, a printer in the English colony of New York, was tried for seditious libel in 1734 for publishing a newspaper critical of the governor. The jury acquitted Zenger despite the judge's instructions; this is perhaps the most famous early instance of jury nullification in the colonies that became the United States.

During the period from 1793 until the Civil War, fugitive slave laws were passed, that required people in non slave states to return escaped slaves to their owners. Much to the contrary, some Northern states passed "personal liberty laws", mandating a jury trial before alleged fugitive slaves could be moved. In many cases, juries simply refused to convict individuals who had been indicted under the Federal law.

"It is not only his right but also 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." - John Adams

"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." —Thomas Jefferson

"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."- John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
 
So let me get this straight....

Activist judges are BAD

Activist juries are GOOD

Sorry...won't compute

I probably just have too low an opinion of the common man, but the idea that 12 people can decide if a law is good or bad is simply frightening

Using the OJ example...if the police had an airtight case against OJ but the jury decided that Nicole and Ron had it coming they could decide to let the juice go???

I am all for the reasonable doubt standard when applicable

But there are ways to get laws changed and they (usually) require more than 12 brains be engaged...assuming you even get 12 working brains on a jury:D

In a country where more people watch American Idol than vote do we really want juries to decide on what laws are "good laws"

the smallest group that I want deciding on good vs. bad law is the Supreme Court...and all I want them doing is determining the constitutionality...not the "fairness" or "goodness"
 
Activist judges are BAD

Activist juries are GOOD
Click to expand...

exactly. Judges aren't supposed to make the law, just state the law and moderate the court proceedings. Jurys decide.

I wanted to throw up after the OJ trial. But should the Judge Ito have said "Sorry y'all, I say you can't do that, you have to come back with a guilty verdict." Which is more to be feared? I think the solutiont there is that 1) jury's should have to pass an IQ exam and have a certain level of education and responsibility in life 2) really, more to the point the hearts and minds of people need to change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top