Jury nullification.

Guys, I hate to do this but I have to agree with Wildalaska on one point of fact.

Prosecutors and Judges use the voir dire process to, among other things, specifically weed out potential jurors who may disagree with the law or have a problem with government tyranny. The process is now used to ensure that a jury is selected which will almost undoubtedly find in favor of the government.

Note:voir dire was intended to make certain that a fair and impartial jury was picked...now it's used to ensure that the jury IS partial...to the government.

For example: if you happen to be part of the jury pool that is being picked to try a case against someone who is accused of carrying a concealed firearm without a permit, owning an automatic firearm without a permit, unlicensed manufacture of a firearm, owning a rifle or shotgun shorter than the legal requirement, or any of hundreds of other non violent crimes, you WILL be asked questions pertaining to your views on the firearms laws in question, or firearms laws in general. You will be asked about your views on the Second Amendment. You may be asked if you own firearms. An affirmative answer to any of these will result in your removal from the jury pool and your subsequent inability to sit as a juror on that case.

The only way to sit on such a jury is to withhold such information from the lawyers and the judge. To do you you may have to lie. If that lie is discovered you will be removed from the jury and likely face contempt of court charges.

There is a not so funny joke that states that "Voir Dire" is French for "Jury Stacking" It's not funny because it's true. The Judges and prosecutors do not want us exercising the power of Jury Nullification because it erodes their power base.

What THEY are doing is wrong. They are trying in advance to get a jury that is sure to find in favor of the government's laws.

It's not always easy to do the right thing. That's my feeling on the issue. I will do whatever it takes to ensure that a jury is not stacked against the defendant if I am ever in a situation where I may sit on a jury.
 
Oh yeah..the point we agree on is that you can get in trouble for exercising Jury Nullification..not specifically for the JN but because you may have to lie to get on the jury in the first place.

That's the extent of our agreement.
 
Note:voir dire was intended to make certain that a fair and impartial jury was picked...now it's used to ensure that the jury IS partial...to the government.
Click to expand...

Did an ammo can drop on your head or something? Please explain to me how it is that the DA and the defense attorney with the SAME amount of peremptory challenges can ensure that a jury is slanted towards the government.

I get to bounce the same amount as the guy on the other side and yet somehow there is an inherent disadvantage?


There is a not so funny joke that states that "Voir Dire" is French for "Jury Stacking" It's not funny because it's true.
Click to expand...

Actually the literal translation is "to see and speak the truth". Very appropriate for those that are going to lie to the judge and other officers of the court.
 
I get to bounce the same amount as the guy on the other side and yet somehow there is an inherent disadvantage?
Click to expand...

it's not the peremptory ones, I think it is the "for cause" ones he is railing against.

And certainly the fact that understanding JN or potential propensity for JN as a for cause boot is the specific one that is interesting in this discussion.
 
Cause challenges are equally applicable to BOTH sides. The DA and defense attorney can both boot people for cause. How exactly is that biased.
 
in the case of JN, completely against the defense.
Click to expand...

JN is nothing more than a jury ignoring the facts and evidence in an effort to not apply the law that would normally apply to that set of facts. As WildAlaska said, the instructions are very clear and will say something like 'if you find the defendant possessed X, you must find him guilty of Y'. They jury can ignore overwhelming evidence that the defendant did in fact possess X to come to the outcome they want (that he is innocent) and you call it jury nullification. But by the same token, a jury could similarly ignore evidence creating a reasonable doubt to come to the alternative outcome that the defendant did possess X and was guilty of Y. When a jury ignores the facts to render a biased decision which lets the defendant go free you call it jury nullification (of the law) and think its perfectly OK. However, if they render a biased decision which ignores exculpatory evidence to convict an innocent defendant, wouldn't it also be jury nullification (of a defense)? And you're OK with this also?
 
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...
.

We all know you can always trust your mechanic. I haven't had enough gunsmiths do work for me to decide that one, but I am sure they are all charitable people and never do anything in their own interests and only work diligently for their customers' benefit. /sarcasm off.

Give me an f'in break. When I need a lawyer, you can bet we will be having discussions, not lectures. And my end will be enlightened. That's how I operate with doctors, and it's served me well for 45 years.

Let me tell you the story of my first root canal. I was supposed to go to my dad's dentist, whom he recommended highly. He was on vacation, so I got his partner, fresh out of school. X-rays seemed to show 2 roots, but he insisted there were 3. I sat for two excruciating treatments a week apart.

Then I came to understand that this jerk was incompetent. So, having had friends in med school and having obtained some of their books, I found out a little about how many roots each tooth is supposed to have and how dental anesthesia is properly applied.

Next visit, I came prepared with a stack of dog-eared books. He was not amused. I didn't give a ****. He was MY EMPLOYEE working on MY MOUTH, and had demonstrated his inability to do so, so I TOOK OVER.

The anesthesia was done the way I dictated (using local anesthesia only) and the procedure was completed painlessly that same day. Naturally, the dentist was quite pissed off. Again, see the above sentiment.

After things finished up, he instructed me to make an appointment for 2 weeks in the future to get the crown done. I politely explained that I knew another dentist and that this was the last he would be seeing of me.

Moral: You need the abilities of a professional when faced with a task only they can do. But you also need to understand what is being done to/for you or you can get taken to the cleaners, and sometimes are.

I torn down a Covair engine and rebuilt it twice when I was a kid. An auto mechanic better have an answer that rings true when he diagnoses my vehicle. As for a gunsmith, I've designed mechanical things way more sophisticated than a gun mechanism. They get the BS test too.

Do you think a judge is exempt from self-serving behavior? I don't. Do you think a prosecutor is? I don't. Do you think every defense attorney is? I don't.

We have an adversarial system. You either have an adversarial system or you don't. I consider entire system adversarial. Including voir dire. Am I a good enough adversary in the legal-political system as a whole to slip my views through it and into the jury box? It'll be fun to see.
 
I think everyone who says jury nullification is illegal, or not a right, should read this handbook by The Fully Informed Jury Association. Admittedly, I knew nothing about jury nullification prior to this thread, but the handbook was a very interesting read and I recommend it to those who post in this thread. It shows that the judges lie to the jury about jury nullification and try to convince them they can not use it if the topic comes up in court. You do not have to listen to the judge's verdict on the case or listen to him when he says you "must convict!"
http://www.fija.org/docout.php?id=180&filename=jurors.doc&filesize=175104
 
Danzigs example:
For example: if you happen to be part of the jury pool that is being picked to try a case against someone who is accused of carrying a concealed firearm without a permit, owning an automatic firearm without a permit, unlicensed manufacture of a firearm, owning a rifle or shotgun shorter than the legal requirement, or any of hundreds of other non violent crimes, you WILL be asked questions pertaining to your views on the firearms laws in question, or firearms laws in general. You will be asked about your views on the Second Amendment. You may be asked if you own firearms. An affirmative answer to any of these will result in your removal from the jury pool and your subsequent inability to sit as a juror on that case.
Click to expand...

Stage 2 wrote:
Cause challenges are equally applicable to BOTH sides. The DA and defense attorney can both boot people for cause. How exactly is that biased.
Click to expand...

Per Danzig's example above, if you were the accused's lawyer, how would you keep the jury from being stacked against the defendant? What questions would you ask to find a " fair and impartial juror"? It seems that the only potential jurors left, after the prosecution weeded out the people that support the 2nd, would have to be biased against the defendant.


badbob
 
I"m glad you quoted "fair and impartial juror".

There is no such thing.

That is why we have 6 or 12 rather than one. It is hoped that the inevitable biases will average out.

Like it or not, you are going to bring your biases to the jury room, and so am I.

I wish that I could say that I won't act on them, but I'm not fool enough to believe I can accomplish that. Particularly if I have to use them to counter another juror's bias I consider undesirable.

That may not be how the law wants it. But that is exactly how it IS.
 
However, if they render a biased decision which ignores exculpatory evidence to convict an innocent defendant, wouldn't it also be jury nullification (of a defense)? And you're OK with this also?
Click to expand...

And the judge has the right to set aside the jury's verdict in that case as a check against the jury.

Both situations of "abnormal rulings" (jury nullification and setting aside a verdict) favor the defendant.
 
WA, it's not that I don't understand thet jury charge..it's that I disagree with it. It is an attempt to deprive jurors of their historic power to nullify bad laws.

I will stipulate that the Judge will specifically tell a juror to follow the letter of the law or to "follow the law as he gives it to me", or something similar.

I simply disgree with the underlying meanings behind the charge.
 
but as the 1895 case stated, you do have the right....the judge is just not telling you that you do. So regardless of anything he says, you do have the right. Some might try to wiggle their way out of it (and may succeed since they have more guns behind them) if ever faced with it, but it is the truth of the matter.

Let's follow this through, what happens. You declare the man on trial not guilty when the law says he did in fact do so. The judge knows you have nullified the law. What's he going to do throw out your verdict? Even if he does, he can't just turn around and say "sorry I declare the guy guilty." Nor can he make you go back into deliberations and declare him guilty as he would be guilty of coercion. It would be a verdict through duress
 
And the judge has the right to set aside the jury's verdict in that case as a check against the jury.
Click to expand...

True, but only in extreme cases; it is not often a judge will set aside a jury's verdict. And in most cases, as with "jury nullification", since the logic and reasoning of the jurors cannot be inquired into after the fact, it is almost impossible to know whether the jury wilingly chose to ignore certain (exculpatory) evidence or whether they just didn't afford it the same weight as the evidence for the conviction. Just because you present a witness that said you didn't do XYZ, doesn't mean that a juror has to believe the witness. You cannot easily judge whether a juror intentionally disregarded exculpatory evidence in an effort to allow the prosecution a conviction because they didn't like the defendant, or whether the jury disregarded it because they simply didn't believe the exculpatory evidence or the veracity of a witness for the defense.
 
About the Rules. Edit: the ones at the URL provided by Wildalaska

Note that they are only rules, not laws.

Next, look at section 4.1, titled "Deadlocked Jury".

Notice that it says that (to paraphrase) by law you are not required to participate in the unlocking of a deadlocked jury. You are being asked to.

They must have choked to have to say "by law you don't have to" in the instructions.

So there's a law somewhere that says you don't have to.

Notice that these rules seem to emphasize that only you, the individual juror, can resolve your issues with the evidence. That means it's the province of your mind only.

Now, even though you can make up your mind whether you like the evidence or not, completely immune to any sort of review by anyone, there still seems to be a law that says once you've done that you don't have to participate in reconsidering.

Couple that with the law that says you must (I've copied it here before) be informed of the penalty for the crime charged before beginning deliberations, and now you have not one but TWO laws that give you an out in the face of what others might call indisputable evidence.

Why do you think that would be allowed to continue?

---

The "rules" are designed to keep you from using your red marker on overzealous legislators. But they're not the law, and the law, at least by what the rules imply, allow you to know what you are doing to the defendant if you find him guilty and to keep your real reasoning completely to yourself forever.

This does not look like intent to stop evaluation of bad law by juries to me. In fact, it looks like some legislatures, somewhere in the past, intended that you do evaluate them.

Call that twisted, but be ready to explain the two laws.
 
Last edited:
No those arent rules...they are pattern jury instructions...guess I need to explain what and why and how?

Hint: Look where the link is from....

WildanyoneelseinclassknowAlaska
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top