Jury nullification.

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.
Click to expand...

Is this law or is this protocol?

I have no problem with single jurors attempting to nullify being excused as a mistrial doesn't help anyone. However, if a juror can convince 11 other people that the law pertaining to that particular case just simply should not apply and that justice would not be served by returning a guilty verdict, then hey, that's the result of a closed jury room.
 
I certainly am not breaking the oath because I get to choose the manner of how to apply the law as a juror.
Click to expand...

Yes you absolutely are. The judge's charge will expressly state you are not to determine the validity of the law.

The snippet you posted clearly stats you are to APPLY the law to the facts. Applying the law means you take the law as it is given and determine if it fits the set of facts that you as a juror has determined is valid.

Doing anything else and you are violating your oath.


The Police chooses how to apply the law when they decide whether or not to make an arrest.
Click to expand...

No they don't. Police don't get to bend the law when they decide to arrest someone. That's just nutty.

The DA chooses how to apply the law when he decides whether or not to prosecute.
Click to expand...

No he doesn't. A DA's desicion to prosecute is a matter of discretion and not law. If anything it demonstrates that the law is rigid since it can't be bent to fit the situation.

When the law is applied its applies as written. Once again we are back to the tactics of the antis. The 2nd doesn't really mean individuals, it doesn't mean modern rifles etc. These concepts are always double edged swords and they will come back to bite you if you aren't careful.
 
Wildalaska, I respect you, but

I've got to disagree with this:

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, criminal contempt.
Click to expand...

You couldn't. There are no legal penalties that can be applied to a juror for his/her decision. They can do whatever they want, for what ever reasons they deem appropriate, and the State has no recourse. Which is as it should be.

Jury nullification isn't a right, it's a natural consequence of the jury system, and to get rid of it would require changes to the way trials are done that nobody (other than your local DA) would support. If you allow jurors to be independent decision makers, you have to admit the possibility that they will decide some cases in defiance of the written law. There's no way around it.

I'm OK with that.

--Shannon
 
WA, Because you are arguing about and oath that you haven't really defined:
Click to expand...

O give me a break, thats a BillneverhadsexwiththatwomanbecausewelltherewaslikeacigarandteethandsallthatandthatsnotsexClinton argument. Oath: faithfully discharge your duty as juror. Yes or no lie or not? Your duty is to find the facts and apply the law as given to you. Will you do that?

Quit beating around the bush already and playing semantic games. You going to lie when you take your oath or not?

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?
Click to expand...

Your ignorance of the legal system is showing. The jury decides what evdience is overwhelming or not...they decide the facts. Simply becasue you think its overwhelming and are suprised by an aquittal does not equal jury nullification.

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

Yep.

BTW, I only referenced a single remark, it should be "obiter dictum"
Click to expand...

Yeah I cant even type english, god forbid i should be as bad in Latin

WildhuntandpeckAlaska
 
There are no legal penalties that can be applied to a juror for his/her decision. They can do whatever they want, for what ever reasons they deem appropriate, and the State has no recourse. Which is as it should be.
Click to expand...

Check your state statutes on contempt. Jurors cant do "whatever" they want. They can judge the facts and apply the law as given to them, thats it.

WildonanadonAlaska
 
We used to use "the ballot box, jury box, and the cartridge box" to defend freedom.

According to you guys, we now have been reduced to two choices.
 
We used to use "the ballot box, jury box, and the cartridge box" to defend freedom.
Click to expand...

Cliches, cliches.... we used to....

We used to have a small lumpen/peasant/petit bourgeoise population led by a smaller aristocratic/intellectual elite schooled in the classics, rather than a shouting mass of angst ridden uncultured worry warts led by venal power hungry fools...so what?

I'll tell ya what...the thing that protects me from both the worry warts and the venal fools is....ta da...THE LAW....whats my line in the sand...well when I see that as a matter of course folks arent getting justice then its time to vote from the rooftops...that aint happened yet and probably wont as long as the law is adhered too

WildsomenumbskullgunfreakaintzengerAlaska
 
Stage2: Even the most knowledgeable police officers choose not to enforce laws. Every single one of em. Jaywalking. Speeding. Are they not deciding on their own whether to arrest the offender?

DA use discretion too, as you said. Sorry, that's what I was getting at. They are not obligated to prosecute every single case and send it to court and a jury.

If a law is to be applied as written, why is it the role of the jury to apply it? Seems to me you are arguing that once a jury has made decisions on facts, there is only one way to apply those facts to the case and law at hand.

Why else would the jury be instructed to apply the law if not to interpret the law? (Unanimously, of course.) The judge educates the jury on the law, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the jury to apply the law as they see it.
 
WildnowyourejustbeingdifficultAlaska:

I said: The judge educates the jury on the law, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the jury to apply the law as they see it.
WA: Back that one up with case law or a jury charge please.
Click to expand...

How else can one apply it? Or is there some universal law truth out there in the ether? Are judges using a new optical brain to brain interface to ensure that what he says is received exactly the same by 12+ people.

A jury is mostly NOT made up of people that can speak legalese, so there is translation going on. A jury has to figure out what a judge means when he says words.

I'm NOT saying that a jury is handed a book of statutes and treaties and they get to try and wrestle with it.
 
It seems those who vehemently oppose the concept of jury nullification are those with formal legal training. Being somewhat cynical, that leads me to question why members of the legal profession would oppose jury nullification.
 
It seems those who vehemently oppose the concept of jury nullification are those with formal legal training. Being somewhat cynical, that leads me to question why members of the legal profession would oppose jury nullification.
Click to expand...

So of a bunch of gunsmiths disagree with your lay opinion its a conspiracy. Or if your auto mechanic disagrees with you its because he has an ulterior motive. Right.

Of course it couldn't be the possibility that those of us who actually have legal training and do this for a living actually know what we are talking about.
 
A jury is mostly NOT made up of people that can speak legalese, so there is translation going on. A jury has to figure out what a judge means when he says words.
Click to expand...

You are hedging. First of all, the charge that the jury recieves has definitions for just about every legal term. Second, the jury is free to ask the judge questions if they have them.

This isn't what we are talking about. Nullification is when someone understands the law but refuses to apply it even when it fits the present case.

By DEFINITION you can't apply the law, and at the same time nullify it.
 
A jury has to figure out what a judge means when he says words.
Click to expand...

No its clear..."Apply the law as I explain it to you"...."If you find that X happened, then you must.....". Clear. if you took some time to research rather than spout internet legal nonsense you would not be continuing this argument.

Of course it couldn't be the possibility that those of us who actually have legal training and do this for a living actually know what we are talking about.
Click to expand...


WildbeatmetooitAlaska
 
So let's distill what we have so far. In this day and age, the job of the jury is to decide on evidence. Once they have done that, their job is purely clerical, to apply the law as given by the judge which is clear to all 12 members of the jury.

Now, sometime between the time first Supreme Court Justice John Jay instructed jurors that the jury has "a right to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." (Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794:4) and now, there has been powers granted to judges and taken away from juries. Er no, that's not right, no powers were removed from jurors, the power to not educate jurors as to their powers has been granted to judges.

However, these powers were granted via judges to judges (i.e. SPARF) and not by legislative bodies thus why there is the cynical response to lawyers in this thread and why arguments like "judges can excuse those trying to nullify" don't hold a lot of weight.

------------------
We should all be on the same page at this point
------------------

Now, add in this: while judges do have the power to excuse jurors who are attempting nullification (though no power to prosecute, to wildalaska's chagrin), they don't have the power to do squat about a jury that chooses nullification.

Whether or not a judge informs the jury of it doesn't mean that that the jury doesn't have the power to nullify.

Saying the jury has "no right" to nullify is arguing semantics.
 
So of a bunch of gunsmiths disagree with your lay opinion its a conspiracy. Or if your auto mechanic disagrees with you its because he has an ulterior motive. Right.
Click to expand...

You are paid for your legal skills; I am paid to be skeptical. And I am skeptical about a system, developed by lawyers and benefiting lawyers, that is structured to constrain the actions of "twelve men, good and true." What is it that the legal profession finds so repugnant about trusting jurors to do the right thing that requires such constraints?

Of course it couldn't be the possibility that those of us who actually have legal training and do this for a living actually know what we are talking about.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I am absolutely certain that the case STAGE 2 and Wild have stated against jury nullification is technically correct.
 
Now, sometime between the time first Supreme Court Justice John Jay instructed jurors that the jury has "a right to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." (Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794:4) and now, there has been powers granted to judges and taken away from juries. Er no, that's not right, no powers were removed from jurors, the power to not educate jurors as to their powers has been granted to judges.
Click to expand...

No, thats not quite right either. Judges are not going to inform the jury of a possible use of their power that isn't intended, but impossible to eliminate.


However, these powers were granted via judges to judges (i.e. SPARF) and not by legislative bodies thus why there is the cynical response to lawyers in this thread and why arguments like "judges can excuse those trying to nullify" don't hold a lot of weight.
Click to expand...

Thats not completely correct either. Some legislatures have adopted these rules. Others haven't but simply rely on longstanding judicial practice. Lawyers arent hoarding anything.
 
I'm not sure it wasn't intended. It isn't addressed. I don't think starting with the opinion of the first Chief Justice is a bad start.


It is possible to eliminate. Just appoint a bailiff with a single job. There is no inherent right to privacy for a jury. Of course, the treatment is as bad as the cure.
 
Re the rights and powers of juries v the powers of judges, the following comes to mind.

Let's say that in a criminal case of some sort, evidence is presented, witnesses are examined, summations are offered, the jury is charged (instructed) by the judge.

The jury then delivers a not guilty verdict or acquits the accused, their action flying in the face of the judges charge, the law as it was written, possibly even evidence presented, as a jury might have done in the Goetz Case, the NYC "Subway Shooter" as he was once described.

There is NOTHING that anyone could then do, in-so-far as criminal prosecution goes,for the jury is supreme regarding acquittals. I believe that in the case of a conviction, where the juries action/verdict was sufficiently egregious, the trial judge could set the guilty verdict aside. Once the jury brings in a not guilty verdict, that's that.

It would seem that Jury Nullification or whatever one might chose to call it, trial juries are really quite powerful entities, more so than many people realize, or perhaps are wiling to realize.
 
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
Click to expand...


I know you're just a guy who works in a gun shop in Alaska, but how about providing case law or statute to back up the above-quote assertion? How does a prosecutor have someone indicted for "criminal contempt?"

(A real prosecutor would have said, "If I were....") ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top