View Full Version : Jury Nullification?
Belmont31R
11-30-11, 01:05
Do you believe in it?
Basically its where the jury decides that even if the accused was guilty of committing the crime the law is wrong and therefore voids the law in determining guilt.
Like say a guy gets charged with jay walking, and the prosecutor has video evidence of the crime. The jury says jaywalking should not be a crime, and votes not guilty.
This concept goes back to our founding where the PEOPLE would both be voting on the guilt and the law. Since then this concept has been snuffed out of the court room, and judges will go apeshit if its mentioned before the jury.
Similarly as man has been arrested and charged with jury tampering for handing out information on the concept in front of a court house. Not going to post articles but his name is Julian Heicklen if you want to look into it.
Jury nullification is an important tool against unjust laws and legal proceedings. Juries are empaneled because it's a right in America to be judged by one's peers. In criminal trials, judges may only set aside jury verdicts if they believe a guilty verdict is not just. They may not set aside a not guilty verdict. This is a tacit admission that a jury may indeed nullify an otherwise compelling case against a defendant. If judges could set aside jury verdicts in whatever fashion they wished, what would be the point of a jury trial?
For all it's imperfections, the American criminal justice system is still weighted in favor of the defendant, but only if the jury truly understands their role. There are unjust and unconstitutional laws that have yet to be ruled as such. If I were on a jury and felt the application of a law to be unconstitutional in said case, I would never allow a judge or fellow jurors to bully me into a guilty verdict. Jurors who cannot fathom this are not worthy of being empaneled.
Since I don't believe any man-made law can be ultimate law, it can never bind my conscience. If the laws passed by man are agreeable to an ultimate standard then generally I will follow them. I do believe in jury nullification, and I would use it.
montanadave
11-30-11, 09:40
While not technically a jury nullification, a jury in Missoula, MT refused to convict a guy for being popped "with a couple of buds" about a year ago and it made some headlines.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_464bdc0a-0b36-11e0-a594-001cc4c03286.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/12/22/on-the-great-montana-marijuana-mutiny/
The subject of jury nullification created quite a stir in this neck of the woods when some folks living on a ranch outside of Red Lodge, MT, were busted for pot back in the late 1970s. The case garnered national attention when Playboy Magazine picked up the story and published an article detailing the "Red Lodge Five" (as the defendants came to be known as), the sketchy evidence used to charge them, and Montana's draconian laws for marijuana possession. I tried to google the story and refresh my memory, but came up empty.
If I recall correctly, Playboy Magazine jumped in neck deep, provided the defendants with legal representation, and jury nullification was one of the defense strategies discussed. That story publicized the whole notion of jury nullification, which previously was an unknown legal concept to many folks who hadn't been to law school.
And the reaction by law enforcement and the prosecutors in the case indicated it was a legal concept they would just as soon have seen stay in the closet.
Do you believe in it?
Absolutely.
“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution,” a Virginia lawyer wrote... His name was Thomas Jefferson.
The primary purpose of the juror is to protect the accused from tyrannical abuses of government and it's unjust laws. The problem is that the judge will often instruct the jury that they must deliberate and judge the person and their actions by whatever he stipulates rather than judging the law which the person has broken as well.
While the Supreme Court ruled in the 1890s that judges were not required to advise jurors of their right to acquit despite the facts, the right still exists. Consider this from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. v. Moylan, 1969:
If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence.... If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.
FIJA's juror handbook is a good primer. http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_Jurors_Handbook.pdf
Another good read. http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_state_language_on_jury_nullification.pdf
Was Upheld by 1st SCOTUS in only the 4th case ever to reach the court:
In Georgia v. Brailsford (1794), the Court upheld jury instructions stating "you [jurors] have ... a right to take upon yourselves to ... determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." Jay noted for the jury the "good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide," but this amounted to no more than a presumption that the judges were correct about the law. Ultimately, "both objects [the law and the facts] are lawfully within your power of decision."
Do not think it has been overturned.
Was Upheld by 1st SCOTUS in only the 4th case ever to reach the court:
In Georgia v. Brailsford (1794), the Court upheld jury instructions stating "you [jurors] have ... a right to take upon yourselves to ... determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." Jay noted for the jury the "good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide," but this amounted to no more than a presumption that the judges were correct about the law. Ultimately, "both objects [the law and the facts] are lawfully within your power of decision."
Do not think it has been overturned.
The problem is that judges skirt around the subject and act like it doesn't exist. Jury stacking through the voir dire process needs to be revised as well.
Yep, and it is why I have never made it through jury selection.
At some point in this county you are asked to swear to apply the law "as it is written" and I always refuse citing the rights of nullification by jury.
That is where I am always excused.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-30-11, 16:41
Yep, and it is why I have never made it through jury selection.
At some point in this county you are asked to swear to apply the law "as it is written" and I always refuse citing the rights of nullification by jury.
That is where I am always excused.
Much more elegant than my "Why would the police arrest an innocent man?"
Why have juries if their isn't jury nullification? Otherwise we could just have a panel of judges.
arizonaranchman
12-02-11, 19:47
Jury nullification is an important tool against unjust laws and legal proceedings. Juries are empaneled because it's a right in America to be judged by one's peers. In criminal trials, judges may only set aside jury verdicts if they believe a guilty verdict is not just. They may not set aside a not guilty verdict. This is a tacit admission that a jury may indeed nullify an otherwise compelling case against a defendant. If judges could set aside jury verdicts in whatever fashion they wished, what would be the point of a jury trial?
For all it's imperfections, the American criminal justice system is still weighted in favor of the defendant, but only if the jury truly understands their role. There are unjust and unconstitutional laws that have yet to be ruled as such. If I were on a jury and felt the application of a law to be unconstitutional in said case, I would never allow a judge or fellow jurors to bully me into a guilty verdict. Jurors who cannot fathom this are not worthy of being empaneled.
Amen. There are such things as unjust laws or times when a law being enforced in certain circumstances is unjust. It's up to We the People to make that ultimate decision regardless of what the law says. The law is an iron fist, the jury should have the right to nullify when appropriate.
It makes me nervous.
One of the principals of the American form of republican representative democracy is that, as John Adams said, "we live in a nation of laws and not men". Having juries deciding if laws were good or not sets a bad precedent. If we don't like laws we have the ability to repeal or change them. That is not the role of the court.
That is unless you are talking about deciding if a law is in contradiction with other laws, such as deciding the Constitutionality of a law.
What I do believe in is the right of State or the court to nullify federal laws that they believe to be unconstitutional. The US Constitution guarantees a republican form of government. The State were intended to be sovereign political entities. The people expressed their power via the State. At least that was how it was supposed to be.
IF you are talking about Judicial Review, there were some founding fathers that supported it and some that didn't. As with 99% of what Thomas Jefferson said, I agree with him on this as well. Here is what he said:
"You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
It makes me nervous.
One of the principals of the American form of republican representative democracy is that, as John Adams said, "we live in a nation of laws and not men". Having juries deciding if laws were good or not sets a bad precedent. If we don't like laws we have the ability to repeal or change them. That is not the role of the court.
"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant’s natural God-given unalienable or Constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law.
"That juror must vote Not Guilty regardless of the pressures or abuses that may be heaped on him by any or all members of the jury with whom he may in good conscience disagree. He is voting on the justice of the law according to his own conscience and convictions and not someone else’s. The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided."
U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, 1941-1946.
"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant’s natural God-given unalienable or Constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law.
"That juror must vote Not Guilty regardless of the pressures or abuses that may be heaped on him by any or all members of the jury with whom he may in good conscience disagree. He is voting on the justice of the law according to his own conscience and convictions and not someone else’s. The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided."
U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, 1941-1946.
I assume that you have no problem with the outcome of the first OJ Simpson trial.
if your peers think the "crime" you've been accused of his bullshit then you should be set free. people who say stuff like "the law is the law" have no business in this country.
I assume that you have no problem with the outcome of the first OJ Simpson trial.
I'm not SteyrAUG, but I don't have a problem with it. The prosecution screwed up, not the law. The jury might not have done the best job, but were it you on trial, would you want the judge to reverse a not guilty verdict of your peers and send you to prison?
We need to be very careful in this area. There are many documented cases where innocent people were found guilty and sent to prison. Do we really need to stack the deck even more towards the prosecution? We already have a LOT of stupid people in this country that automatically assume guilt if the .gov says they are.
That was not the way it was intended to be. :(
ForTehNguyen
12-03-11, 08:48
I assume that you have no problem with the outcome of the first OJ Simpson trial.
Innocent until proven guilty. The system worked as intended just like with Casey Anthony. The prosecution completely screwed up in both cases and there wasn't insufficient to render a verdict, despite that they probably did do it. The charge of 1st degree murder isn't a charge that is constitutionally controversial. Really bad analogy.
A much better example of jury nullification would be if I was a jurist for someone charged with breaking federal drug laws when the drug is legal in their state. Federal govt has no authority to regulate these drugs constitutionally, therefore the charge is null because of the 9th and 10th Amendment.
"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offense is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant’s natural God-given unalienable or Constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law.
"That juror must vote Not Guilty regardless of the pressures or abuses that may be heaped on him by any or all members of the jury with whom he may in good conscience disagree. He is voting on the justice of the law according to his own conscience and convictions and not someone else’s. The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided."
U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, 1941-1946.
When is comes to discussion on Constitutional issues I am really not persuaded with the opinions of politically appointed justices. (IMO, one of the few flaws in our Constitution is the political appointment of justices for life) Especially big government revisionist justices like Harlan Stone. His support of the the New Deal and other highly dubious initiatives by FDR have done lasting damage to this country and are at the routes of many of our current problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Musketeers_(Supreme_Court)
I look to the text of the Constitution, and the words of the men who wrote it; Madison's notes from the convention, the Federalist papers, the Anit-Fed papers, and ratification debates to name a few.
Supreme Court justices have been trying to rewrite the Constitution and distort it's meaning since John Marshall. It was politics then as now. The when losing party at the Convention, the Federalist, got in positions of power they began to twist the Constitutional into the way they had wanted it and did a damn good job. They were the decedents of every progressive and revisionist justice that has come every since.
Remember, jury nullification can go both ways. It can set a dangerous precedent where jurors start ignoring the laws and rule based on "feelings".
We already have that in the US; its called the Democratic Party
Many of our "laws" were constructed and put in place by a bunch of wingnuts who've never worked an honest day in their lives and they only made these laws to appease a small minority of people. Many of these laws are actually unconstitutional and should be repealed as it is so I see no problem with jury nullification and am actually in support of it.
Two thoughts:
1- Jury nullification undermines the rule of law and representative government. That being said, when it is used wisely against genuinely bad law or exceptional circumstances, it has a place. What constitutes "bad law" is obviously subject to definition and your value system.
2- Remember that the verdict is "not guilty", not "innocent." The same with defendants.
Nathan_Bell
12-03-11, 11:58
Two thoughts:
1- Jury nullification undermines the rule of law and representative government. That being said, when it is used wisely against genuinely bad law or exceptional circumstances, it has a place. What constitutes "bad law" is obviously subject to definition and your value system.
2- Remember that the verdict is "not guilty", not "innocent." The same with defendants.
Yes, but the true evidence of a bad law is in the court room. So that is where the people should first strike it down.
Two thoughts:
1- Jury nullification undermines the rule of law and representative government. That being said, when it is used wisely against genuinely bad law or exceptional circumstances, it has a place. What constitutes "bad law" is obviously subject to definition and your value system.
2- Remember that the verdict is "not guilty", not "innocent." The same with defendants.
With all due respect brother. The people in power making the laws are the furthest thing from a "representative government" I could ever imagine. Out of the thousands and thousands of laws that have been written how many actually are in line with the original intent of the constitution?
One of the biggest problems with today's juries is the fact that the state stacks the jury through the voir dire process and the jury is not made up of an impartial 12 that are randomly selected peers of the accused.
Even though it was once the written law, would you vote to convict an escaped slave from the south, return him to his "Master" and to then be punished, maybe by inflecting torture and disfigurement to that escaped slave? Your answer is hopefully "NO!" But, at one time that was the law. How about burning a witch? Once too that was the law, a bad law and one that should not to be acted upon by our juries. If these laws were again passed today, how should you vote if on that trial's jury?
"When a person sits on a jury it is not only his right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his best understanding, judgment and conscience though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." - John Adams 1791
"Jurors should acquit even against the judge's instruction if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong." - Alexander Hamilton 1804
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." - Thomas Jefferson
The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts. - Samuel Chase 1804
The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power--to make available the common sense judgement of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps over
conditioned or biased response of a judge. - Byron White 1975
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - John Jay 1794
I assume that you have no problem with the outcome of the first OJ Simpson trial.
I have a real problem with it because I feel he was guilty. But the bottom line is the prosecution screwed the pooch and left the door open due to their incompetence.
And of course it was racial retaliation for the earlier Rodney King beating verdict.
Please take the time to read Appendix I from Vin Suprynowicz's book Send in the Waco killers if you'd like to know the mathematical reasoning behind a 12 person jury. I can't seem to find it online but I will copy it here later if anyone would like to read it, it's very interesting.
I'm not SteyrAUG, but I don't have a problem with it. The prosecution screwed up, not the law. The jury might not have done the best job, but were it you on trial, would you want the judge to reverse a not guilty verdict of your peers and send you to prison?
We need to be very careful in this area. There are many documented cases where innocent people were found guilty and sent to prison. Do we really need to stack the deck even more towards the prosecution? We already have a LOT of stupid people in this country that automatically assume guilt if the .gov says they are.
That was not the way it was intended to be. :(
Innocent until proven guilty. The system worked as intended just like with Casey Anthony. The prosecution completely screwed up in both cases and there wasn't insufficient to render a verdict, despite that they probably did do it. The charge of 1st degree murder isn't a charge that is constitutionally controversial. Really bad analogy.
A much better example of jury nullification would be if I was a jurist for someone charged with breaking federal drug laws when the drug is legal in their state. Federal govt has no authority to regulate
these drugs constitutionally, therefore the charge is null because of the 9th and 10th Amendment.
While you may think of jury nullification being used only to correct unconstitutional or controversial laws, that limited scope is not the history of jury nullification in the US. Jury nullification simply means that a jury substitutes the law with their version of ethics, morals, or emotion - something that scares the hell out of me given the direction of our society. I used the OJ Simpson example because it is generally considered to be the classic example of jury nullification of our generation. If you happen to feel that the OJ verdict was an example of a just and proper outcome, there are plenty of examples of nullification being used in the US South to free white killers of blacks.
The history of jury nullification in civil trials has been a profound detriment to our society. Just look at the soaring cost of medical malpractice and defensive medicine. Doctors never know if the jurors on a case will use the law or emotion to decide cases and award judgements. This results in the settlement of defendable cases and rising healthcare costs for all.
Finally, there are plenty of people who feel that the Second and Tenth Amendments were conceived by a "bunch of wingnuts" to use Irish's term. Do you have any problem with jurors using nullification to ignore these laws?
Many of our "laws" were constructed and put in place by a bunch of wingnuts who've never worked an honest day in their lives and they only made these laws to appease a small minority of people. Many of these laws are actually unconstitutional and should be repealed as it is so I see no problem with jury nullification and am actually in support of it.
Then the general population needs to get their shit together and stop voting for " wing nuts". The court room is not the place to legislate. At least the "wing nuts" are held accountable to the public every election. Jurors are not.
Then the general population needs to get their shit together and stop voting for " wing nuts". The court room is not the place to legislate. At least the "wing nuts" are held accountable to the public every election. Jurors are not.
I agree with you in principal. However, the uneducated dumbshit masses have their faces stuck in their iPhones and don't know diddly squat about what's happening in their government. Watch the first 5 minutes of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI
I'm tied up for the rest of the day but I'll transcribe Appendix I later from the book I mentioned earlier. The mathematical analysis of the reason for 12 jurors is very interesting and I think most here would enjoy reading it. Good day gents.
I agree with you in principal. However, the uneducated dumbshit masses have their faces stuck in their iPhones and don't know diddly squat about what's happening in their government.
Who do you think jurors are?
Who do you think jurors are?
Check and mate...
Belmont31R
12-03-11, 14:14
I think the jury system is flawed. No way would I want my fate decided by the dumb asses who are out there who have no clue what basic legal terms are or what level of proof the prosecution actually has to show.
I was showed up for jury duty once, and they basically pick the dumbest people they can.
They want soccer moms who watch Oprah and other brainless shows all day so they can get to them emotionally or intellectually.
Check and mate...
Negative. They aren't randomly selected from the peers of the accused. They are hand picked through the voir dire process. It's a bullshit method that the prosecutor uses to get the verdict that they want. They're looking to elevate their conviction rate and it has nothing to with justice.
Negative. They aren't randomly selected from the peers of the accused. They are hand picked through the voir dire process. It's a bullshit method that the prosecutor uses to get the verdict that they want. They're looking to elevate their conviction rate and it has nothing to with justice.
I think your arguement has some merit. However, the defense is allowed to strike jurors, and don't think that they are not going to stack the pool in their favor.
While you may think of jury nullification being used only to correct unconstitutional or controversial laws, that limited scope is not the history of jury nullification in the US. Jury nullification simply means that a jury substitutes the law with their version of ethics, morals, or emotion - something that scares the hell out of me given the direction of our society. I used the OJ Simpson example because it is generally considered to be the classic example of jury nullification of our generation. If you happen to feel that the OJ verdict was an example of a just and proper outcome, there are plenty of examples of nullification being used in the US South to free white killers of blacks.
The history of jury nullification in civil trials has been a profound detriment to our society. Just look at the soaring cost of medical malpractice and defensive medicine. Doctors never know if the jurors on a case will use the law or emotion to decide cases and award judgements. This results in the settlement of defendable cases and rising healthcare costs for all.
Finally, there are plenty of people who feel that the Second and Tenth Amendments were conceived by a "bunch of wingnuts" to use Irish's term. Do you have any problem with jurors using nullification to ignore these laws?
What would you propose in lieu of jury nullification. I can assure you that without it, we would be in far worse shape than all the "profound detriment" that you feel we've incurred. Imagine a government that has no checks and balances in the courtroom. Not a system I'd want to live under. :(
Just my opinion. We need a populace that has a serious coherent world view, then spend considerable time reflecting upon it. Then develop from that world view some good principles to live by. In lieu of that, we're pretty much doomed.
?
"When a person sits on a jury it is not only his right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his best understanding, judgment and conscience though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." - John Adams 1791
"Jurors should acquit even against the judge's instruction if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong." - Alexander Hamilton 1804
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." - Thomas Jefferson
The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts. - Samuel Chase 1804
The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power--to make available the common sense judgement of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps over
conditioned or biased response of a judge. - Byron White 1975
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - John Jay 1794
The Jefferson quote is out of context. It is from the larger quote I posted. He was actually arguing against judicial review. Jay, Adams, and Hamilton were hard core Federalists and had almost nothing in common with Jefferson.
The fact that you included a quote from Jefferson the others would make him role over in his grave.
What would you propose in lieu of jury nullification. I can assure you that without it, we would be in far worse shape than all the "profound detriment" that you feel we've incurred. Imagine a government that has no checks and balances in the courtroom. Not a system I'd want to live under. :(
First, I do not believe that blatent jury nullification is a frequent occurance in criminal cases. The State already has an uphill climb with it's burden of proof, and many cases of suspected nullification in favor of the defense (i.e. Casey Anthony) were really just the jurors weighing the evidence. The judge is a powerful check on attempts to nullify in favor of the prosecution since they can set aside an unjust guilty verdict.
Civil cases are another matter and a looser pays system would go a long way to save all of us some money.
You can't stop people from getting high, but government policy dictates whether people get their fix cheaply and legally from walgreens, or illegally from violent narcoterrorists via mexico.
ForTehNguyen
12-07-11, 22:23
Peter Schiff interviewed Julian Heicklen, who was arrested for passing out flyers informing potential New York jurists of their right to jury nullification. I haven't seen their interview posted yet on youtube. If one appears I will post it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.