Very well said, Invention. +1 though I contend that it is not only a power but a right and responsibility as well.
More conjecture from an internet lawyer.
Very well said, Invention. +1 though I contend that it is not only a power but a right and responsibility as well.
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.
__________________
.On a side note, your statutes did not say that the jury was to take into consideration the punishment, merely that they had to be informed of what it was
"Thats the bottom line...so called Jury nullifaction is nothing more than LYING to Court, Lawyers and parties, SWEARING FALSELY to the Court and violating your solemn duty to the system and your fellow citizens."
It's amost like you think it is not legal just because you and some modern judges don't want it to be true.
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".
Seems to me you describe it as a right when you say "it always will be". You are describing an intrinsic right of a juror
You can't because it is not illegal.
I'm not arguing for using JN, I'm arguing for reserving it as a last resort to ensure justice is served.
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.
To be sure, the factfinder in a criminal case has traditionally been permitted to enter an unassailable but unreasonable verdict of "not guilty." This is the logical corollary of the rule that there can be no appeal from a judgment of acquittal, even if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming. The power of the factfinder to err upon the side of mercy, however, has never been thought to include a power to enter an unreasonable verdict of guilty.
Nonetheless its still improper and a judge can remove a juror for it.
which supports nullification, so there's the case you've been asking for, and it is certainly not 100 years old.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A JUROR'S REFUSAL TO DELIBERATE!!!! We're talking about jury nullification. How the hell does a judge "remove" a juror after a verdict?
To be sure, the factfinder in a criminal case has traditionally been permitted to enter an unassailable but unreasonable verdict of "not guilty." This is the logical corollary of the rule that there can be no appeal from a judgment of acquittal, even if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming. The power of the factfinder to err upon the side of mercy, however, has never been thought to include a power to enter an unreasonable verdict of guilty.
Sample LANGUAGE IN A JUROR'S OATH: It is your duty to determine the facts, apply the law to those facts and determine the guilt or innocence. . .
The indictment should be for criminal stupidity.If I was a prosecutor and some juror got up after a trial and announced he bollixed the proceedings in the sacred cause of nullification, I would look to indict him for at a minimum, crim inal contempt.
This still says nothing about nullification. It says that the decision of the jury will not be disturbed if they acquit even in the face of overwhelming evidence. It also says that there is no power to convict someone in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Again all this does is prove we have an independent jury system. It says nothing about what jurys are to consider or disregard.