You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Jury nullification.
- Thread starter Danzig
- Start date
For more information on Jury Nullification please visit The Fully Informed Jury Association at www.fija.org
Our nation's founding document did not originally contain a Bill of Rights.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.
I pointed out an example
Stage2, I wish you would stop saying that there is nowhere that modern jurisprudence supports a right of juries to decide the law. As I pointed out, in Indiana it is part of our enumerated rights contained in the state constitution. Indiana's constitution is noted for its Jacksonian republican ideals, and the jury power was considered one of the bulwarks against oppressive government.
Stage2, I wish you would stop saying that there is nowhere that modern jurisprudence supports a right of juries to decide the law. As I pointed out, in Indiana it is part of our enumerated rights contained in the state constitution. Indiana's constitution is noted for its Jacksonian republican ideals, and the jury power was considered one of the bulwarks against oppressive government.
How about you, STAGE 2?
I DO have a formal legal education and am a practicing attorney.
Stage2, I wish you would stop saying that there is nowhere that modern jurisprudence supports a right of juries to decide the law.
What I did say was there there is no individual fundamental to jury nullification and there is no case anywhere that states the function of the jury is to decide the validity of laws. All of this is in reference to the federal government. States vary. California and Texas expressly prohibit jury nullification. Others such as yours allow it.
I DO have a formal legal education and am a practicing attorney.
So, you are bound to oppose jury nullification as an officer of the court. If you are a trial lawyer, you also have a vested interest in opposing jury nullification.
The job of trial lawyers is to present facts to juries in the context of carefully structured legal arguments that inexorably lead to verdicts in favor of their clients. Jury nullification is the disaster that occurs when jurors do not follow the script in reaching verdicts.
If you are a trial lawyer, you also have a vested interest in opposing jury nullification.
Wouldn't that depend on the side that I am on. Assuming its a criminal case, a defense attorney would always benefit from nullification.
On the contrary, a jury might return a guilty verdict against a drug dealer or mobster even though a clever defense might technically lead to a logical conclusion of acquittal. I think good lawyers would rather rely on their ability to present strong legal arguments than the fickleness of the jurors.Assuming its a criminal case, a defense attorney would always benefit from nullification.
invention_45
New member
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 disliking blacks was a right, why is it that if I asked you during voir dire if you disliked blacks and you said yes and gave an explanation, and my client was black, every judge in the nation, state or federal, would let me bounce you for cause?
You would be allowed to bounce for cause. Disliking blacks is a right.
And it's not a question of whether it is a RIGHT or not. It is a question of whether it is the right thing to do and whether it is possible to do.
If the entire body of law considered it such a wrong thing to do, then we'd either be able to force each juror to explain his decision (which would not work; they'd just lie) or we'd be able to toss a jury's acquittal after the fact, which we are not allowed to do.
You cannot possibly really mean that you got through law school and are naive enough to believe a juror turns off his entire personality when he enters deliberations. If that were the case, we'd need only one juror per jury, because they would all think the same.
The juror himself and his life experiences are EXPECTED to bear on the outcome. That's why we need 12 (or 6) and not one.
--
You say let's address bad laws through the legislative process. Most people cannot compete with lobbying special interests. The POWER (not RIGHT) to nullify is a hedge against that situation. What about the instances when prosecutors withhold exonerating evidence? Not supposed to happen, but it does. That's when a smart juror's POWER to nullify evens the playing field. It is an adversary system, no?
When you are a defendant, you are an adversary. You were arrested or indicted by people paid by whom? You were prosecuted by people paid by whom? You are being tried by people being paid by whom?
A juror trying a case that is serious and has victims is unlikely to nullify. He's a potential future victim. A juror that is serious and sees no victims or knows of an extremely excessive sentence can nullify and should nullify to discourage bringing of similar cases, in which he himself may be the next defendant.
I am not a lawyer. I don't know if it's a right.
But I do know it's a power.
invention_45
New member
Frankly, I, too, believe it's a right and responsibility to my fellow human being. But the law may see it differently, and since I only know what I've read and not come close to practicing any law, all I can vouch for is that it's a power.
Wikipedia actually has a pretty good entry on JN, its origins and evolution as a concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
What I did say was there there is no individual fundamental to jury nullification and there is no case anywhere that states the function of the jury is to decide the validity of laws. All of this is in reference to the federal government. States vary. California and Texas expressly prohibit jury nullification. Others such as yours allow it.
__________________
Stage 2: Would you mind posting a link to the Texas code that prohibits jury nullification in criminal cases? What is the punishment for a jury that's found to be nullifying? What's the procedure for discovering and adjudicating nullification? If the judge in a criminal case in Texas thinks that the jury found the defendant not guilty through nullifcation, do you think the judge can overturn the verdict? (That's a rhetorical question.)
Last edited:
invention_45
New member
I did some searching of the Florida Statutes, since I'm familiar with their odd little search engine, and found precious little. But I did find this:
Now, the question of the intent of the legislature comes to mine when I see the italicized requirement. Why does the jury need to know the penalty if they are only to be triers of fact? Could it be that the intent of the legislature is that some other factor should be considered, in this instance, whether the punishment fits the crime?
If that's not a wink and nod for jury nullification, splain me what it is.
918.10 Charge to jury; request for instructions.--
(1) At the conclusion of argument of counsel, the court shall charge the jury. The charge shall be only on the law of the case and must include the penalty for the offense for which the accused is being charged.
(2) All charges to the jury shall be delivered orally and shall be taken by the court reporter, transcribed, and filed.
(3) At or after the close of the evidence, a party may file written requests that the court instruct the jury on the law as stated in the requests. The court shall inform counsel of its proposed action on the requests before their arguments to the jury.
Now, the question of the intent of the legislature comes to mine when I see the italicized requirement. Why does the jury need to know the penalty if they are only to be triers of fact? Could it be that the intent of the legislature is that some other factor should be considered, in this instance, whether the punishment fits the crime?
If that's not a wink and nod for jury nullification, splain me what it is.
On the contrary, a jury might return a guilty verdict against a drug dealer or mobster even though a clever defense might technically lead to a logical conclusion of acquittal. I think good lawyers would rather rely on their ability to present strong legal arguments than the fickleness of the jurors.
Doesn't work both ways. If a jury comes back guilty and the verdict is against the weight of the evidence such that no one could find beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be tossed.
Lets start with this since its about the only thing you said here that is correct.
I love it how you throw that in at the END of your post. Moving on...
Disliking blacks is a right. Acting on that dislike in certian situations is not, such as with employment, housing, and the jury system. You don't get bounced for your opinion, you get bounced because you are going to act on that opinion as opposed to solely acting on the facts. The same applies to laws. You have complete freedom to dislike a law, but you still have an obligation to follow it. You may hate the law, but you are getting tossed not for your opinion, but that you are going to take your opinion and let it override the facts.
Its always possible. It always has been, and as long as we have a jury system it always will be. It is not however a fundamental right. The government can NEVER take away your fundemental rights (with very few limited exceptions) Here, the government can do what it wants to you and you have NO recourse. This wouldn't be the case if it was your "right".
Wrong again. Forcing each juror to explain his decision would undermine the entire system. There are ways of preventing nullification without doing this. Several states such as CA and TX allow the judge to remove jurors who are trying to nullify if found before the verdict.
Of course not. Thats the whole reason why we have challeneges. What I do expect is people to be honest when they take their oath and to follow the rules.
But life experience has nothing to do with following the courts charge. When the judge pulls down his glasses ever so slightly and peers at you from up on the bench and tells you directly that you ARE NOT to judge the validity of the law, it doesn't matter who you are or what you do for a living.
I am not a lawyer. I don't know if it's a right.
I love it how you throw that in at the END of your post. Moving on...
If disliking blacks was a right, why is it that if I asked you during voir dire if you disliked blacks and you said yes and gave an explanation, and my client was black, every judge in the nation, state or federal, would let me bounce you for cause?
You would be allowed to bounce for cause. Disliking blacks is a right.
Disliking blacks is a right. Acting on that dislike in certian situations is not, such as with employment, housing, and the jury system. You don't get bounced for your opinion, you get bounced because you are going to act on that opinion as opposed to solely acting on the facts. The same applies to laws. You have complete freedom to dislike a law, but you still have an obligation to follow it. You may hate the law, but you are getting tossed not for your opinion, but that you are going to take your opinion and let it override the facts.
And it's not a question of whether it is a RIGHT or not. It is a question of whether it is the right thing to do and whether it is possible to do.
Its always possible. It always has been, and as long as we have a jury system it always will be. It is not however a fundamental right. The government can NEVER take away your fundemental rights (with very few limited exceptions) Here, the government can do what it wants to you and you have NO recourse. This wouldn't be the case if it was your "right".
If the entire body of law considered it such a wrong thing to do, then we'd either be able to force each juror to explain his decision (which would not work; they'd just lie) or we'd be able to toss a jury's acquittal after the fact, which we are not allowed to do.
Wrong again. Forcing each juror to explain his decision would undermine the entire system. There are ways of preventing nullification without doing this. Several states such as CA and TX allow the judge to remove jurors who are trying to nullify if found before the verdict.
You cannot possibly really mean that you got through law school and are naive enough to believe a juror turns off his entire personality when he enters deliberations. If that were the case, we'd need only one juror per jury, because they would all think the same.
Of course not. Thats the whole reason why we have challeneges. What I do expect is people to be honest when they take their oath and to follow the rules.
The juror himself and his life experiences are EXPECTED to bear on the outcome. That's why we need 12 (or 6) and not one.
But life experience has nothing to do with following the courts charge. When the judge pulls down his glasses ever so slightly and peers at you from up on the bench and tells you directly that you ARE NOT to judge the validity of the law, it doesn't matter who you are or what you do for a living.
If that's not a wink and nod for jury nullification, splain me what it is.
Its not. Do a search on the pattern jury charges for florida. If memory serves they have a similar paragraph as TX.
Stage 2: Would you mind posting a link to the Texas code that prohibits jury nullification in criminal cases? What is the punishment for a jury that's found to be nullifying? What's the procedure for discovering and adjudicating nullification? If the judge in a criminal case in Texas thinks that the jury found the defendant not guilty through nullifcation, do you think the judge can overturn the verdict? (That's a rhetorical question.)
Don't have the section off hand, but it can be found in the TPJC. There is no punishment for a juror found to be nullifying other than removal if before the verdict. Even then its difficult unless another juror goes to the judge. If the defendant is found not guilty then he cant be tried again as its double jeopardy. And no the judge can't overturn the verdict unless there is some evidence of misconduct and then it get retried.