Unacceptable: Judge nullifies juror nullification

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Well, I suppose as a citizen and a potential juror you have to decide that for yourself.  I just hope you don't wrongly convict someone because a judge told you to, or because you thought you had no other choice.  Vote your conscience in they jury room, even if that opposes the wishes of the judge.

For myself, I think it's quite clear.  I've studied the constitutions of each of my governments.  I've studied the histories.  I've studied the writings of the founders.  I'm convinced that they didn't want the people to put a blind faith in the law or those who prosecute it.  They insisted that verdicts be decided by 12 laymen rather than members of the government or the courts.  I think this is a very, very good idea.  If the prosecutor can't consistently convince 12 average people that a given law is just, then people shouldn't be convicted under that law. 

The people are always to be the final authority in our government.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

oner juror doing what floats his boat rather than judging based on the evidence? is it only cool if hes a frustrated ron paul supporter acting out sans wookie suit? or do you sign off on these cases too?
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.16413/article_detail.asp

Nothing on that page is related to the jury nullification topic at hand.

no?two folks who ignore facts and the law cause it doesn't fit their feelings/agenda

Racism != jury nullification.

[De Selby]

Well, I suppose as a citizen and a potential juror you have to decide that for yourself.  I just hope you don't wrongly convict someone because a judge told you to, or because you thought you had no other choice.  Vote your conscience in they jury room, even if that opposes the wishes of the judge.

For myself, I think it's quite clear.  I've studied the constitutions of each of my governments.  I've studied the histories.  I've studied the writings of the founders.  I'm convinced that they didn't want the people to put a blind faith in the law or those who prosecute it.  They insisted that verdicts be decided by 12 laymen rather than members of the government or the courts.  I think this is a very, very good idea.  If the prosecutor can't consistently convince 12 average people that a given law is just, then people shouldn't be convicted under that law. 

The people are always to be the final authority in our government.

It is true that the people are the final authority-but they act through different organs of the state.

When you don't like the law, you change it via the legislative branch of government.  That's why it is called "legislative."

There is absolutely no support for the proposition that the founding fathers were anti-common law, or that they thought the jury room was a better venue for deciding what the law should be than the ballot box.  There is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

If you want new laws or to repeal old ones, you go to Congress, not to someone else's trial. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Well, I suppose as a citizen and a potential juror you have to decide that for yourself.  I just hope you don't wrongly convict someone because a judge told you to, or because you thought you had no other choice.  Vote your conscience in they jury room, even if that opposes the wishes of the judge.

For myself, I think it's quite clear.  I've studied the constitutions of each of my governments.  I've studied the histories.  I've studied the writings of the founders.  I'm convinced that they didn't want the people to put a blind faith in the law or those who prosecute it.  They insisted that verdicts be decided by 12 laymen rather than members of the government or the courts.  I think this is a very, very good idea.  If the prosecutor can't consistently convince 12 average people that a given law is just, then people shouldn't be convicted under that law. 

The people are always to be the final authority in our government.

It is true that the people are the final authority-but they act through different organs of the state.

When you don't like the law, you change it via the legislative branch of government.  That's why it is called "legislative."

There is absolutely no support for the proposition that the founding fathers were anti-common law, or that they thought the jury room was a better venue for deciding what the law should be than the ballot box.  There is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

If you want new laws or to repeal old ones, you go to Congress, not to someone else's trial. 

I strongly disagree.  My own research and the stated opinions of people I trust my understanding of jury nullification.  I'll leave you to your beliefs, however wrong they might be, and I'll just have to hope that you're never a juror in a case against me.

[De Selby]

I strongly disagree.  My own research and the stated opinions of people I trust my understanding of jury nullification.  I'll leave you to your beliefs, however wrong they might be, and I'll just have to hope that you're never a juror in a case against me.

If you don't plan on violating a statute that is fairly clear in its terms, it won't ever be a problem.

In this case, though, neither your belief nor mine settles the matter.  There is actually a public record of the laws of the United States, and on this issue, they're fairly clear, which is why folks who clamor for jury nullification instructions routinely lose, and jurors who engage in it get tossed.

[GigaBuist]

no?two folks who ignore facts and the law cause it doesn't fit their feelings/agenda

Yes, they have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

1)  You cited two cases that resulted in acquittal by the entire jury.  That's more than "two folks."  That's probably about 24.  I'm really starting to wonder if you aren't, yourself, ignoring the facts.

2)  You cited two cases that resulted in acquittal by the entire jury not because they had a problem with the Constitutionality, or even morality, of the law, but judged the way they did based entirely on the race of the defendant.  I'm not seeing any evidence that the jurors that murder was peachy-keen, or that the government didn't have any authority to convict murderers.

3)  The juror in question wasn't working from "feelings" -- he had an honest question.  If the federal government knew that they didn't have the authority to ban the possession/sale/manufacture of alcohol, as evident by the creation of the 18th amendment, then where is the Constitutional authority to ban the possession/sale/manufacture of other recreational drugs?  I'm not expecting you to answer this, because I already know the answer, but it's a heck of a lot more legitimate reason to judge "Not Guilty" than any of the cases you cited.

Finally, could you please upgrade your writing to something that might actually pass 4th grade English classes?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

oner juror doing what floats his boat rather than judging based on the evidence? is it only cool if hes a frustrated ron paul supporter acting out sans wookie suit? or do you sign off on these cases too?
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.16413/article_detail.asp

Nothing on that page is related to the jury nullification topic at hand.

no?two folks who ignore facts and the law cause it doesn't fit their feelings/agenda

Racism != jury nullification.

it was indeed nullification  and it was motivated by racism
the dimwit in the case in question in his pathetic fail at nullification was trying to soapbox/grandstand for drug law reform. heck hes more pathetic than the jury forewoman  at least that one suceeded in her nullification.


how would you and the other paulian alcoytes propose we decide which cases nullification is ok and which it isn't? this isn't even a slippery slope its nearly free fall

if i fell for this i would never file income tax again or maybe file for my slavery reparations rebate

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

no?two folks who ignore facts and the law cause it doesn't fit their feelings/agenda

Yes, they have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

1)  You cited two cases that resulted in acquittal by the entire jury.  That's more than "two folks."  That's probably about 24.  I'm really starting to wonder if you aren't, yourself, ignoring the facts.

2)  You cited two cases that resulted in acquittal by the entire jury not because they had a problem with the Constitutionality, or even morality, of the law, but judged the way they did based entirely on the race of the defendant.  I'm not seeing any evidence that the jurors that murder was peachy-keen, or that the government didn't have any authority to convict murderers.

3)  The juror in question wasn't working from "feelings" -- he had an honest question.  If the federal government knew that they didn't have the authority to ban the possession/sale/manufacture of alcohol, as evident by the creation of the 18th amendment, then where is the Constitutional authority to ban the possession/sale/manufacture of other recreational drugs?  I'm not expecting you to answer this, because I already know the answer, but it's a heck of a lot more legitimate reason to judge "Not Guilty" than any of the cases you cited.

Finally, could you please upgrade your writing to something that might actually pass 4th grade English classes?

So its your position that because they were sucessful in their nullification it invalidates it as an example of the pit you urge us to hurl ourselves in? I can come up with some where all they got was a hung jury too , don't know of any that failed as feebly as the young hero.
How would you go about deciding which were "good " nullification and which were "bad"   You and the other revolutionaries gonna be the arbiters?  I think the worlds gonna pass on that deal but thanks for the kind offer

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I strongly disagree.  My own research and the stated opinions of people I trust my understanding of jury nullification.  I'll leave you to your beliefs, however wrong they might be, and I'll just have to hope that you're never a juror in a case against me.

If you don't plan on violating a statute that is fairly clear in its terms, it won't ever be a problem.

In this case, though, neither your belief nor mine settles the matter.  There is actually a public record of the laws of the United States, and on this issue, they're fairly clear, which is why folks who clamor for jury nullification instructions routinely lose, and jurors who engage in it get tossed.

I believe you're smart enough to know that because something happens (nullification rules losing, nullifiers getting tossed) does not prove that it is right.

Let me ask you this.  Do you think there are any imperfect or unjust laws on the books, or do you believe instead that every law ever passed and enforced is inherently just?

I believe that there are unjust laws on the books.  I think that's inevitable in any human system.  Heck, in a system as imperfect as government I believe that it's a fairly common occurrence.

What would you do if you were on a jury asked to decide the fate of a man charged with one of those laws that are unjust? 

Never mind the fact that you could and should work to have the law overturned.  That's a battle to be fought in the future.  You're in the jury room right now, the unjust law on the books right now, and you must decide right now whether or not to take a man's freedom away over an unjust law.

What do you do?  Do you vote for what you know to be an injustice out of respect for a bad law?  Do you defer to the wisdom of a bunch of politicians who passed a law they never should have passed?  Or do you nullify right now, and get to work on overturning the law as soon as the court dismisses you?

Which is the most moral decision, guilty or not guilty?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

how would you and the other paulian alcoytes propose we decide which cases nullification is ok and which it isn't? this isn't even a slippery slope its nearly free fall

You understand nullification about as well as you understand my support of Ron Paul.  That is to say, not at all.

[GigaBuist]

So its your position that because they were sucessful in their nullification it invalidates it as an example of the pit you urge us to hurl ourselves in?

No, I was simply calling into question your statement that "two" jurors let those men go free.

I can come up with some where all they got was a hung jury too , don't know of any that failed as feebly as the young hero.

That'd be great, actually, and it would be even better if you could give us some cases to talk about where the juror refrained from judging the defendant guilty because they felt there was a Constitutional issue at hand instead of some racial bigotry.  In other words, something germane to the discussion.

How would you go about deciding which were "good " nullification and which were "bad"

I would judge that based on the frequency of which a law was struck down by juries.  The final note will be when a prosecutor simply won't bring charges anymore based on previous jury trials.

Let me relate this to self defense situation.  Around 2002 there was an issue where a man in Cedar Springs, MI shot a man that had not entered the home, but was issuing threats and armed with either a crowbar or screwdriver.  I forget which, but it wasn't an implement of long reach.  The man of the house opened the door and shot him dead in his tracks.

At the time Michigan had "duty to retreat" type laws in place.  With the attacker not being an immediate threat to anybody, by law, the man committed murder.  The local prosecutor never pressed charges.  Why?  Simple:  He knew there was no way he'd get a jury to convict the guy.

[De Selby]

I believe you're smart enough to know that because something happens (nullification rules losing, nullifiers getting tossed) does not prove that it is right.

Let me ask you this.  Do you think there are any imperfect or unjust laws on the books, or do you believe instead that every law ever passed and enforced is inherently just?

I believe that there are unjust laws on the books.  I think that's inevitable in any human system.  Heck, in a system as imperfect as government I believe that it's a fairly common occurrence.

On this there is no doubt.  Of course there are unjust laws-but there is no Constitutional or legal guarantee that you won't be subjected to "unjust laws"-if there were, we wouldn't have a government, because enforcement of the law over a million different ideas of what is an unjust law would be impossible.  That's why instead of just having one amendment "There shall be no unjust laws", we have ten, specifically enumerating our rights, and we can debate whether or not to add more guarantees through the legislative process.

What I am saying is not that the founding fathers thought every law would always be just; but they certainly did not, insofar as they were jurists, support the view that juries were right to ignore the law in accordance with their own personal ideas of justice.

On that point, the evidence is quite clear: juries were to act in America as they did in the common law system-judging the facts primarily, and sometimes giving the final say on what the law means (which is what your State's constitution requires and what many of the quotes you found in your research refer to).

That is what it means to "submit the law to the jury" in the language of the early American jurists, and in virtually 100 percent of cases today.  It does not mean that the jury decides whether or not they think the law should exist.

The answer to your question about what to do is this: Realize that you personally are not the final arbiter of all that is right and wrong, and that you live in a country where you are required to accept that other people's opinions are valid in creating the law.  So the proper move, if you truly believe the law is unjust, is to refuse to participate on a jury, and to spend your efforts fighting to change the law.

The answer is not to invalidate the wishes of everyone else in your society (expressed via the politicians-that is how our country works), and declare yourself master of all that is good and just.  Government by consent means you have to respect the wishes of people other than yourself as well.

[MicroBalrog]

What I am saying is not that the founding fathers thought every law would always be just; but they certainly did not, insofar as they were jurists, support the view that juries were right to ignore the law in accordance with their own personal ideas of justice.

Let us present two dual situations:

Situation A:

The jury receives an instruction from a judge "If A and B are correct, namely that the defendant A. Did possess a 17-inch-long shotgun, and B. Knowingly possessed it, then you are forced to rule defendant Y guilty, no matter what you personally think on the meaning of the law."

Or, conversely situation B:

The jury receives an instruction saying: "Here is a copy of the relevant legal sections, and here's what the various witnesses said. For the defendant to be guilty, 1. Factual proof must exist, beyond reasonable doubt, that he did possess the shotgun, and 2. You must be persuaded that the law is correctly applied in this situation."

What do you think the Founders had in mind?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I believe you're smart enough to know that because something happens (nullification rules losing, nullifiers getting tossed) does not prove that it is right.

Let me ask you this.  Do you think there are any imperfect or unjust laws on the books, or do you believe instead that every law ever passed and enforced is inherently just?

I believe that there are unjust laws on the books.  I think that's inevitable in any human system.  Heck, in a system as imperfect as government I believe that it's a fairly common occurrence.

On this there is no doubt.  Of course there are unjust laws-but there is no Constitutional or legal guarantee that you won't be subjected to "unjust laws"-if there were, we wouldn't have a government, because enforcement of the law over a million different ideas of what is an unjust law would be impossible.  That's why instead of just having one amendment "There shall be no unjust laws", we have ten, specifically enumerating our rights, and we can debate whether or not to add more guarantees through the legislative process.

What I am saying is not that the founding fathers thought every law would always be just; but they certainly did not, insofar as they were jurists, support the view that juries were right to ignore the law in accordance with their own personal ideas of justice.

On that point, the evidence is quite clear: juries were to act in America as they did in the common law system-judging the facts primarily, and sometimes giving the final say on what the law means (which is what your State's constitution requires and what many of the quotes you found in your research refer to).

That is what it means to "submit the law to the jury" in the language of the early American jurists, and in virtually 100 percent of cases today.  It does not mean that the jury decides whether or not they think the law should exist.

The answer to your question about what to do is this: Realize that you personally are not the final arbiter of all that is right and wrong, and that you live in a country where you are required to accept that other people's opinions are valid in creating the law.  So the proper move, if you truly believe the law is unjust, is to refuse to participate on a jury, and to spend your efforts fighting to change the law.

The answer is not to invalidate the wishes of everyone else in your society (expressed via the politicians-that is how our country works), and declare yourself master of all that is good and just.  Government by consent means you have to respect the wishes of people other than yourself as well.

Oh.  I should have known it would come down to this.  It always does, if you boil it down far enough.

In your view, we're supposed submit ourselves to the wishes of the majority.  All of us are merely a small portions of the whole, just cogs in a a great machine.  It's the whole that matters, not any of us individually.

That's where we disagree.

I say to hell with collectivism.  I'm a man, an individual.  I won't submit myself to the wishes of a majority unless I think it's the right thing to do so.  The defendant is a man too, and I won't subject him to injustices of the majority, either.  I will decide for myself how to vote in the jury box, just as I decide for myself how to handle all the rest of my life.

The founders gave me, as a juror, the decision on whether or not to convict the defendant.  I'll vote to acquit or convict based on what I think is right.  If that means I vote counter to a law, or counter to a judge's instructions, then so be it.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

"  The local prosecutor never pressed charges.  Why?  Simple:  He knew there was no way he'd get a jury to convict the guy."

could you post a link to this case? in particular where the prosecutor said that was why he declined to press charges. that would be most remarkable

at least you didn't preface your guess with "clearly"

someone i can't remember who once said that if justice is served then the prosecution has won , whether its a guilty verdict or not.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

What I am saying is not that the founding fathers thought every law would always be just; but they certainly did not, insofar as they were jurists, support the view that juries were right to ignore the law in accordance with their own personal ideas of justice.

Let us present two dual situations:

Situation A:

The jury receives an instruction from a judge "If A and B are correct, namely that the defendant A. Did possess a 17-inch-long shotgun, and B. Knowingly possessed it, then you are forced to rule defendant Y guilty, no matter what you personally think on the meaning of the law."

Or, conversely situation B:

The jury receives an instruction saying: "Here is a copy of the relevant legal sections, and here's what the various witnesses said. For the defendant to be guilty, 1. Factual proof must exist, beyond reasonable doubt, that he did possess the shotgun, and 2. You must be persuaded that the law is correctly applied in this situation."

What do you think the Founders had in mind?

the depth to which you are cognizant of how the american court sytem works is .... um    unique
those two samples are quite different, not bound by reallity but different none the less

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

at least you didn't preface your guess with "clearly"

Given your consistently incomprehensible writing style, I don't think you have much room to pick on my use of the word "clearly".

[MicroBalrog]

the depth to which you are cognizant of how the american court sytem works is .... um    unique
those two samples are quite different, not bound by reallity but different none the less

You do realize I deliberately posed two extreme, virtual examples, none of which is real currently?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

at least you didn't preface your guess with "clearly"

Given your consistently incomprehensible writing style, I don't think you have much room to pick on my use of the word "clearly".

you appear to be doing a yoemans job then comprehending  except for being able to answer my question about  how do we determine which nullifications we should allow? or should we just endorse them all? including some oif the ones i quoted and linked to. did i phrase the question poorly or is the answer troublesome?

did you also not have any support for what the prosecutor thought when he didn't charge the man in the shooting you used for an example? mi notice you overlooked that part of the post  or maybe i just wasn't clear enough?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the depth to which you are cognizant of how the american court sytem works is .... um    unique
those two samples are quite different, not bound by reallity but different none the less

You do realize I deliberately posed two extreme, virtual examples, none of which is real currently?

you posted some stuff with no, or at best a distant, relationship with reallity?! say it ain't so!
why? couldn't you use examples that would fit in the real world?  you may find that trying to bend reallity to fit your imagination is an uphill fight. historically folks who move into the real world have been beaten into greater or lesser submission by having to rein in their imaginary universe to a point where it at least fits into the real one. there are some particularly harsh points in this process but it is survivable.
perhaps you have an aswer to how we should determine which nullifications are good for us and which are the delusional rants and not good/allowable. or is EVERYTHING allowable in your imaginary brave new world?

[roo_ster]

my question about  how do we determine which nullifications we should allow? or should we just endorse them all? including some oif the ones i quoted and linked to. did i phrase the question poorly or is the answerr troublesome?

I wonder at all the spleen-venting over the possibility that citizens might exercise the power of jury nullification.  But, then, any power-relationship will cause great squawking on the part of those who would like to have more of it and others to have less of it...


csd:

The way I see it, JN is power*.  Powers are generally granted to gov't in the face of the rights & liberties of the citizenry and at their expense.

The jury is one of the very few cases where power is granted to citizens who are not gov't officials.

Power is morally/ethically neutral.  Just like inanimate objects.  They can be used for good or evil.

JN is no different. 

Contemporary (contemptuous?) lawyerly types are trying to grasp more power** at the expense of juries and non-gov't/non-lawyer citizens.  The SS and BW present two of the current arguments in favor of wresting this power from the hands of the citizens.

I side with the citizenry and support nearly every means to increase a citizen's power in the face of an actively self-aggrandizing gov't and its technocrat functionaries and symbiotes. 

Power only respects a greater power and I think it best that gov't officials have some respect for the citizenry.  Fear would be better, IMO, but I'll settle for respect.

What it boils down to is the moral worth of those we place on juries.  If they are reprobates, their decisions as jurors will likely be skewed toward the irresponsible or evil.  If they are upstanding citizens, I would expect the opposite outcome.

In the case of GigaBuist's prosecutor, we see the results of moral citizens using JN in the past to generate respect and fear on the part of the prosecutor who decides not to prosecute what is clearly a violation of an unjust law.

In the case of csd's examples, we see immoral reprobates and the hash*** they make of the jury system.  As with gun control, I see no reason to deprive the good and moral power & liberty because the immoral and debased can not handle it.




* As is the jury system as a whole, of which JN is merely one component

** This has been the trend for a century and the lawyerization of American society is quite striking and overbearing.

*** Not the only example, given the state of neighborhoods, economies, and governments in such "urban" secotrs.

[GigaBuist]

did you also not have any support for what the prosecutor thought when he didn't charge the man in the shooting you used for an example? mi notice you overlooked that part of the post  or maybe i just wasn't clear enough?

It was me that posted that example, not HTG, and it looks like my memory failed me a bit there.  The prosecutor said nothing of the sort and didn't have to charge the man because a previous court ruling redefined the definition of a home to include the porch area.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2941
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90824

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

In the case of GigaBuist's prosecutor, we see the results of moral citizens using JN in the past to generate respect and fear on the part of the prosecutor who decides not to prosecute what is clearly a violation of an unjust law.


actualy no we don't  thanks to him for the links
also thanks that the prosecutor wasn't a jerk and pressed for charges anyway. it happens that way sometimes in some areas

i have less problem with someone being a holdout juror  he has the right to vote his conscience and there is a system of checks and balance in the system. however what the hero in this story was try to grandstand from the jury box and that is inappropriate and the judge handled it well if lieniently.

[richyoung]

jury nullification has brought us things like that portrayed in to kill a mockingbird. countless times. i

The fact is, as Cassandra and Sara's Daddy points out, jury nullification  or rather, the power of the jury to acquit, and the lack of double jeopardy  has ensured that sometimes, bad people go free. OJ Simpson was also a bad person and went free.
But as far as I am concerned, better have a few more extra bad people go free than have a few extra good people in prison.

OJ was NOT, repeat NOT, and example of "jury nullification".  It would only have been jury nullification if one of two conditions were present:

1.   The law against murder was somehow unjust or unconstitutional, in the eyes of members of the jury.  This is not the case.

2.  The jury felt that OF did violate thelaw, and the law was just, but that he had extenuating circumstances or necessities that justified the double murder.  This is also not the case.

For the record, the OJ jury refuesed to convict because they thought it pausible that a racist police department had forged evidence against OJ - this defense was allowed to be presented by Judge Ito, (unlike a jury nullification defense), and is known as reasonable doubt.

[ilbob]

I am inclined to agree the jury in the OJ case may have felt there was enough doubt to warrant a not guilty verdict. That can happen when the jury feels a number of police officers and other witnesses for the state lied on the stand.