Jury nullification.

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.
Click to expand...

If jury nullification was a right then the jury would be instructed on it. You cant show me a single case that says outright that jury nullification is a right. As I said before they all state that jury nullifcation is a necessary part of having a free jury system.

This DOESN'T make it a right.
 
"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
Click to expand...


Notice both of these statements say NOTHING about jury nullification. To say otherwise twists the context of these quotes and reads in words that are not there.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Here is where your logic fails you. People have no right to serve on a jury. If you are booted you have no legal recourse to get you back on. Thats it.

A jury and the court is the creation of government. The government has the right to set rules regarding procedures. The "rights" that you are talking about are fundamental rights. They exist for people whether a government exists or not.

With no government, there is no jury box. A persons right to speak, or travel, or keep firearms, or to be free from imprisonment exist apart from government. They can be exercised apart from government. Jury nullification CANNOT exist apart from government. As a result its not a right.
 
How, exactly, does a court boot a juror after a verdict's rendered?
Click to expand...

They can't after the verdict, but prior to the verdict, they can be replaced.

If this did happen, and the juror sued because the government violated their "right" to nullify, the case would be tossed before the judge got to sit down.
 
There is no justice anymore, only law?
Click to expand...

Here's the problem. Everyone here believes that the 2nd amendment gives us the individual right to keep and bear arms. Liberals don't believe this, and they know that they could never repeal this amendment. What they do instad is go through the back door, and use the courts to try and dismantle the 2nd piece by piece. They ignore the system and the process because it won't let them pass their agenda (which is the primary reason why the framers made it so difficult in the first place)

By using the jury to nullify a valid law as opposed to having the legislature repeal it, we are using the same tactics as those we claim to be better than. Its the same sneaky back door method that everyone else uses. That makes us no better.

I believe there should be justice, but I also believe that except in the most extreme cases the law should be followed. If you don't like it then use the system. Its hard and it takes work, but thats what it was put there for. If you don't there you are no different than others who wish to see all guns banned. Different agenda, same tactics.
 
You had it right that there can't be a law covering every single situation especially considering circumstances. That just isn't feasible. And not all laws should apply in a given situation.

Jury nullification certainly should only be used in the most extreme case (and obviously only on the case at hand) to ensure that justice is served.

I would hope that DA's choose not to prosecute some cases. I would hope that judges throw out cases without merit. I rely on the jury to be the last word on justice.
 
Danzig, quick and dirty question for you.

If jury nullification was a right, why is it that if I asked you during voir dire if you agreed with the law in the case and you said no and gave an explanation, every judge in the nation, state or federal, would let me bounce you for cause.

If jury nullification was in fact a right then shouldn't you be allowed to stay?
 
JN is a right of tradition and has been used for centuries, in the 1890's the "legal system" wanted to limit the power of the juries. I will use the example that an instructor used. A law is pasted that you can no longer wear blue clothing. you wear a blue shirt and are arrested. when taken to trial it is up to the jury to decide if you are guilty and should be "punished". The jury has to decide first if the law is correct and if you violated that law.
Yes this seems to be an over simplication of why JN exsist there are many unjust laws on the books.
 
True, you would be thrown out

of the jury pool by any prosecutor worth his/her paycheck for saying that you disagreed with the law.

This is another argument for nullification not being a "right", in the legal context, since if you had a right to be on any particular jury, there would be no need for the selection process at all, as challenging a juror would be a violation of that juror's right to be on the jury. Clearly, this is not the case.

Nullification is an "emergent property" of the jury system. It exists, because there is no way to restrict the juror's ability to render a decision without destroying the whole system of trial by jury. It isn't, that I know of, codified in law or court procedure, it simply is, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

So far as I know, there are no penalties for jurors who ignore the judge's instructions. And prosecutors can't appeal acquittals. So if you get on a jury, and choose not to convict, there's nothing anyone can do about it, regardless of your reasons. You can even state them out loud, to your fellow jurors. If there were some way to remove you from the jury for it, wouldn't that cause a mistrial anyway? Which is what you'd get if the other jurors didn't go along with your stand in the first place.

It's a no-cost decision.

--Shannon
 
Stage 2,

The answer to that is easy. The government does not respect the rights and freedoms of the people. Keeping us from being able to exercise our rights without infringement is proof of this.

The government does not WANT us to exercise our right to nullify it's laws. Should we expect any different? Nullification is a challenge to it's sovereignty. A challenge to it's monopoly on lawmaking. Rather than the servant it was intended to be, government has become the master. Nullification threatens that mastery.
 
Stage 2

"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." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy". - Chief Justice John Jay

Was he wrong?

Was the jury that found John Peter Zenger "not guilty" even though he clearly violated the law of England wrong? How about the jury that found William Penn "not guilty" even though he too broke the law? Or the juries which refused to convict persons who were obviously guilty of violating the fugitive slave laws?

Are these people all wrong? Should they have done their civic duty and blindly supported the edicts of the governments of their time? Or did they do what was right and correct?

Answer us please.
 
I would never have imagined that this particular hair could be split so many times.

Jury nullification is just a fancy way of saying that jurors can vote any way they choose, adhering to or ignoring the law.
 
So any time you can get 12 people to agree you can , in effect, change a law

Right:rolleyes:

The law is supposed to be pretty much black and white...and blind...anyone seen the statue of justice:confused:

Once upon a time...before mandatory minimum sentences...the punishment could be tailored to "fit the crime"

Which was one way the legal system could deal with those that broke the law but for one reason or another deserved a "break"
 
Was he wrong?
Click to expand...

He wasn't wrong, you are. You read this passage as some sort of declaration that jury nullification is a right. Its not, and thats not what Jay was saying. He was illustrating the point that I have been saying all along. Judges decide the law, and jurys the facts, but because jurors have a right to decide the case for themselves without any outside interference, there is nothing to stop a juror from ruling on the law.

The fact that you have to go all the way back to England in the 1700's ought to tell you that there is something wrong. Nothing in out modern jurisprudence (and by modern I mean in the last 100 years) indicates that nullification is a proper function of a jury.

Finally, and most importantly, your logic is totally ridiculous. You can't point to the Jay court, or other courts at that time as a defender of rights on one hand, and then use them as an example of tyranny run amuck. These courts which you claim support a right of nullification are the same ones which affirmed a right to own slaves. In all of your posts you do the same thing. You cherry pick what suits your argument and dismiss the rest as "contrary to your rights".

That's not the way it works.
 
I'm no lawyer. I'm a Soldier. I make no claim to know the law..just my rights. Yours too if you choose to exercise them.

The government is supposed to be the servant of the people. What kind of servant could it be if it wasn't ultimately accountable to us? It is our right to challenge, question, and fight everything that the government does, every law it makes. I am sovereign.the government is NOT.
 
I'm no lawyer.... I make no claim to know the law...
Click to expand...

Thats the first thing you've said that I completely agree with.

The government is supposed to be the servant of the people. What kind of servant could it be if it wasn't ultimately accountable to us? It is our right to challenge, question, and fight everything that the government does, every law it makes. I am sovereign.the government is NOT.
Click to expand...

So essentially you are telling me that without jury nullification the government isn't accountable to the people. Nevermind the fact that nullification wil never change a law. Nevermind the fact that people have the right to send like minded representatives to the government. Nevermind the fact that the judiciary can strike laws that run afoul of the constitution.

In your mind, the fate of our nation rests on a principle that is apparently not important enough for the framers to even mention it in our founding document.

Your ideas are fanciful at the least.

Stage 2..I fight for the rights that your kind try to deny everyone else.
Click to expand...

I don't deny anyone anything. I also don't create rights where they don't exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top