Jury nullification.

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.
__________________

Like I said, it was a rhetorical question. :) I don't believe we've been discussing cases where one or more jurors won't deliberate. We've been discussing jury nullification, which only happens, for the purposes, I believe, of this discussion, when a verdict is delivered.
 
I did that (searched "jury,charges"). Oddly, the same statute came up, only it was the 3rd most frequently chosen rather than about the 10th as before.

Note the title of the statute: "Charge to jury".

---

Now, naturally, if called for jury duty, I am most certainly not going to interrupt the judge, clear my throat, and announce that I am going to nullify a law. I can tell you that in some cases (circa 2005) the jury was NOT asked about any such thing, so it's hit and miss.

Should that work out, I'm most certainly not going to mention the concept to anyone during the trial, nor am I going to start pontificating about how much I dislike the law in question. I will find a way to, let's pick a word you'll like, slither around the issue and justify my conclusion that the facts can be interpreted another way. And I'll attempt to convince another juror of it as well. That is simply my way of thinking, and nobody can prove otherwise.

As far as chucking me if I dislike blacks (which I don't, but it's an example), how the hell are they going to know? A large number of people who dislike blacks have never been a victim of a black perpetrator, so that question will not always work. If I favor jury nullification, how are they going to know?

Are they going to subpoena this post to convict me of contempt when I say I don't favor it? What if I changed my mind between now and then?

---

I'm not sure I heard a good reason yet, or even a crappy one, that counters my contention that the legislature has demanded that a juror consider at least one factor other than the facts.
 
So you are going to sit there and lie when the judge tells you to only consider the facts and not the law.

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.
 
I might. It's a shell game.

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
.

Sometime before October of 2005, Florida had fairly good self-defense and firearm laws. But they were scattered and there was a lot of lore and one had to peruse case law to see what was meant. Apparently the legislature didn't like that, so they revamped the laws. In fact, they included an "intent of the legislature" statement. It's in there. They basically slapped everybody with a carp to get their attention and said THIS IS WHAT WE MEANT.

We're in nearly the same boat as before, but now we know where we're at. Not too much changed.

With that in mind, exactly why do you think they insist on the jury knowing the punishment? Maybe so they can gloat? Why would they have to put that in there? Maybe they thought somebody would attempt to sweep a draconian punishment under the rug so a conviction could be had in order to advance an agenda? Naaah. Nobody would do THAT.

Would they?
 
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.

Couch it in any highfalutin patriotbabble terms you want, its still no better than what the guy in the dock did.

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. Maybe thats why you dont see many folks gettin up and braggin about how the nullified a case, they know its underhanded, shady and criminal

WildhowsthatAlaska
 
Wildalaska

"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."

You just can't say it any better than that!
 
Sasquatch, WildAlaska, you and others keep saying that even after the rest of us keep posting written historical evidence over and over again that it IS NOT in fact lying, it IS in fact a historically legal option and right that the jury has. It's amost like you think it is not legal just because you and some modern judges don't want it to be true.

That's why I'm bowing out of this discussion because at this point it's just going in circles.
 
It's amost like you think it is not legal just because you and some modern judges don't want it to be true.

No actually becasue modern statutes and jurisprudence SAY it's not true. Reality is different than wishful thinking.

WildfalsusinunofalsusinomnibusAlaska
 
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. It's the nature of the beast.

Wildalaska, care to show me a case where a juror was convicted of nullification? You can't because it is not illegal. Who knows why people don't brag about it.. maybe because they THINK it is illegal because a judge peered over his glasses and TOLD them they can't do that (even though they can)

I'm not arguing for using JN, I'm arguing for reserving it as a last resort to ensure justice is served.
 
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

No, I'm describing an inherent element of a free jury system. If it was a right, then judges would inform jurors of it. They specifically don't, and most times state the exact opposite for a reason.

You can't because it is not illegal.

Nonetheless its still improper and a judge can remove a juror for it.
 
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.

Man, looks like case law has been trying to lesson the importance of a jury, as obviously this wasn't in the constitution.

Not sure how I feel about that.. seems in violation of the 6th amendment, yet there is an obvious need to have a check against an impartial jury, which is supposed to be what jury selection is for, no?

What's the mechanism for overturning a jury? Just a judge setting a verdict aside? Isn't this what the appeal process is for?

In looking this up, I came across Jackson v Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 317 n.10 (1979), which has the wonderful words:
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.

which supports nullification, so there's the case you've been asking for, and it is certainly not 100 years old.
 
Nonetheless its still improper and a judge can remove a juror for it.

Once again, 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?
 
which supports nullification, so there's the case you've been asking for, and it is certainly not 100 years old.

I can pick and choose random statements from some Court and prove the Moon is made of milk duds, but such obiter dicta as you recite has nothing to do with the matter under discussion here.

Let me take it one step further o lovers of the patriot created and marketed "right" of jury nullification....when you raise your hand IN COURT and swear you will fairly judge the facts before you and APPLY the law as it is given to you, ya'll just give a wink and nod and LIE right to the Courts face, yes?

WildimgettingirritatedatthisandamgoingtoendthisparticularpostnowinsteadoftellingyouwhatithinkofthatkindofbehaviorwhichaintpoliteAlaska
 
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?

In certian states, if a juror brings it to the judges attention prior to the rendering of the verdict, he can excuse a juror who is trying to nullify.
 
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.

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.
 
WA, Because you are arguing about and oath that you haven't really defined:
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. . .

I certainly am not breaking the oath because I get to choose the manner of how to apply the law as a juror.

The Police chooses how to apply the law when they decide whether or not to make an arrest.
The DA chooses how to apply the law when he decides whether or not to prosecute.
The jury chooses how to apply the law, too.

I don't believe in JN just because of a particular law I think is stupid without taking into account the case at hand. I'm saying it shall be an option.

BTW, I only referenced a single remark, it should be "obiter dictum"
 
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.
The indictment should be for criminal stupidity.

BTW, Wild, don't you have formal legal training?
 
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.

All the jury has is the evidence and the law.. if the evidence is overwhelming and a verdict in favor of the defendant is still made, then how the law was applied made the decision. How is this not nullification?

not applying the law to a case IS nullification, is it not?
 
Back
Top