Jury nullification case

[Perd Hapley]

I hadn't heard about this case. I thought others here might be interested. Two guys were charged with jury tampering for handing out pamphlets that promoted jury nullification. The judge dismissed the charges.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29262852/denver-judge-dismisses-charges-against-jury-nullifcation-activists

[Scout26]

Jury nullification is based on an obscure legal act from the 1600s that allows jurors to acquit defendants because they believe a law is immoral or unjust.

See !!!   It's just another one of those wacky TeaParty type legal theories that's out of step with modern times...

[230RN]

Fom what I understand, "jury nullification" is like using dirty words at a black-tie gathering.  Nobody in the legal industry likes the concept.  It has a tendency to impact negatively their income and mocks their legal expertise.

It "breaks their rice bowl," as the saying goes.

Terry

[birdman]

Jury nullification isn't a law, but arises from the combination of two laws/principles, both of which are very important, and both of which stand zero chance of changing.
1. Jurors can't be held responsible for a verdict
2. A person can't be tried twice for the same crime.
Thus, 3. jury nullification.  One can't have 1 and 2 without getting 3.

[Scout26]

I thought there was case law (IIRC from the USSC from the early days of the republic), in which was stated that that jurors are triers of facts and the law.

Ahhh, here it is:

In the 1794 case of Georgia v. Brailsford (1794) Chief Justice John Jay charged the jury for the unanimous court,

"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of 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 it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision."

[freakazoid]

If jury nullification wasn't desired, why else would you put regular citizens as part of a trial?

[Hawkmoon]

"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of 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 it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision."

It's that respect part that's getting the judges all hot and bothered. They know that most of them are entirely undeserving of respect and they don't like it when jurors actually read the law and find that the judge's instructions don't seem to fit what the law says ... at all.

Sometimes jury nullification is nothing more than a jury saying, "Yeah, he's guilty but he's a good guy so we'll let him walk." The underlying concept, though, as John Jay expressed it is for the jury to have the power (and the duty) to judge the law, not to ignore it. If you see that someone is guilty under a law but you also see that it's a stupid, badly crafted law -- vote to acquit. Nullification ... of a bad law.

[De Selby]

I thought there was case law (IIRC from the USSC from the early days of the republic), in which was stated that that jurors are triers of facts and the law.

Ahhh, here it is:

In the 1794 case of Georgia v. Brailsford (1794) Chief Justice John Jay charged the jury for the unanimous court,

Sorry, birdman is 100 percent correct.

You quoted a case that is frequently (and often the only) case cited by nullies.  Judging the law does not, and never has meant judging its merits - that's a case about juries interpreting what the law means, something that is normally reserved for the court.  Juries find fact, judges decide law as a rule but not without exception.

It is not a case about nullification.  Citing it doesn't get judges hot and bothered except at the level of misunderstanding that attaches.

Freak, juries started out as a way of ensuring people who knew what happened decided the case.  They were not impartial - the origins are very deep, from a time when common law was much more primitive.  They were not invented to check state power.

[dogmush]

Freak, juries started out as a way of ensuring people who knew what happened decided the case.  They were not impartial - the origins are very deep, from a time when common law was much more primitive.  They were not invented to check state power.

But it sure is a handy feature.   

[HankB]

. . . Judging the law does not, and never has meant judging its merits - that's a case about juries interpreting what the law means, something that is normally reserved for the court . . .

A couple of decades ago, there was a very complicated case involving investments and securities where someone did something wrong, and was being prosecuted for it. (IIRC, this was in New York)

When the case went to the jury, they couldn't make heads nor tails out of it - and when they asked the judge for clarification, all he did is read the law to them, which was written in legalese so dense it may as well have been penned in Urdu.

They acquitted, much to the dismay of both the prosecution and the judge. They later commented that if they couldn't figure out what the law said after the alleged violation, and if the judge couldn't explain it, they couldn't in good conscience convict.

Good for them. 

* * * * *

Then of course there's the matter of relying on a judge to interpret what the law means; if it takes a judge to do that . . . how in the world can anyone OTHER than a judge be reasonably expected to comply with it?

[grampster]

Jay's commentary is sensible and reasonable.  But, since judges have the right to overturn a decision by a jury, or direct a verdict, justice would also be well served that a jury should have the power of nullification.

[birdman]

Jay's commentary is sensible and reasonable.  But, since judges have the right to overturn a decision by a jury, or direct a verdict, justice would also be well served that a jury should have the power of nullification.

In what cases?  Under what circumstances?  If it's "always", then the powers of a jury are by definition, zero.  I don't see anything in COTUS that says "judges can overturn a jury decision or direct a verdict"
In the case of appeals, it's either "law was wrong" in which case the result cant change from acquittal to guilty, only the other way.  If it's "some other issue" (and there are defined reasons), it can -only- be retried.
I can't think of a way for a judge, even on appeal, to change acquittal to guilty without a subsequent retrial.

I may be -really- wrong, but if I am, please point out why so I may learn.

[Mannlicher]

the legal community, judges and prosecutors, were sure scratching their heads after the jury decided not to charge OJ Simpson.  Nullification does not always please all the folks.

[Brad Johnson]

the legal community, judges and prosecutors, were sure scratching their heads after the jury decided not to charge OJ Simpson.  Nullification does not always please all the folks.

I think that was a matter of "We're tired, confused, and pissed at the whole thing and just want to get the hell out of here."

Brad

[Hawkmoon]

You quoted a case that is frequently (and often the only) case cited by nullies.  Judging the law does not, and never has meant judging its merits - that's a case about juries interpreting what the law means, something that is normally reserved for the court.  Juries find fact, judges decide law as a rule but not without exception.

It is not a case about nullification.  Citing it doesn't get judges hot and bothered except at the level of misunderstanding that attaches.

Please refresh my memory: I believe you are an attorney, but are you an American attorney? I ask because you're completely wrong on this.

Juries find fact, judges decide law as a rule but not without exception.

Go back and read John Jay's instruction.

"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of 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 it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."

It should be remembered that this came from the FIRST Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. If the statement is so incorrect, you might think that in the 214 years since the instruction was given the Supreme Court might have corrected it. They have not. In fact, they have affirmed it -- but then they ruled that, although juries have a right to judge the law, judges don't have to tell the juries that they have that right.

It is not a case about nullification.  Citing it doesn't get judges hot and bothered except at the level of misunderstanding that attaches.

Wrong again. Judges get VERY hot and bothered about it. I've experienced it first-hand. I actually had a judge tell me straight out that John Jay never made such a statement. (How sad for the judge that I'm a direct descendant of the aforementioned John Jay, my great-grandfather on that side of the family was a professor of law at Yale, and my grandfather was his student. I kinda sorta knew a bit of what I was talking about.)

[birdman]

As I said before, one doesn't need precedent to say nullification is legal.  As per my earlier statement, unless you can prosecute juries for their decisions -and- eliminate double jeopardy, nullification can legally occur.

[De Selby]

Please refresh my memory: I believe you are an attorney, but are you an American attorney? I ask because you're completely wrong on this.

Yes I am.

Go back and read John Jay's instruction.

"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of 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 it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."

It should be remembered that this came from the FIRST Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. If the statement is so incorrect, you might think that in the 214 years since the instruction was given the Supreme Court might have corrected it. They have not. In fact, they have affirmed it -- but then they ruled that, although juries have a right to judge the law, judges don't have to tell the juries that they have that right.

Determine the law does not mean "decide if you like it."  The reason you don't understand this is that you aren't familiar with the plethora of cases about what juries do (find facts) and what judges and lawyers do (interpret and apply the law). 

Claims about jury nullification law are about as legally valid as those tax seminars about the 16th amendment.

Wrong again. Judges get VERY hot and bothered about it. I've experienced it first-hand. I actually had a judge tell me straight out that John Jay never made such a statement. (How sad for the judge that I'm a direct descendant of the aforementioned John Jay, my great-grandfather on that side of the family was a professor of law at Yale, and my grandfather was his student. I kinda sorta knew a bit of what I was talking about.)

Legal training is not hereditary.  The judge probably got bothered because you presented the statement like you did here - in a way not even close to what it actually means.

Birdman is exactly right on this.  In fact there HAVE been cases of legislators trying to hold jurors accountable for deliberations, but they are routinely shot down because of the constitutional and common law status of juries.

[Hawkmoon]

Determine the law does not mean "decide if you like it."  The reason you don't understand this is that you aren't familiar with the plethora of cases about what juries do (find facts) and what judges and lawyers do (interpret and apply the law).

I understand it very well. The reason you don't think I understand it is that I don't agree with you. 

Legal training is not hereditary.  The judge probably got bothered because you presented the statement like you did here - in a way not even close to what it actually means.

I didn't "present" it in any way at all. During group voir dire one of the attorneys asked if anyone would have a problem following the judge's instructions on the law. Since I was under oath, I had to raise my hand. After all, I hadn't heard the case, I had no idea what law or laws might be involved, and I hadn't heard the judge's instructions on whatever laws might have been involved. How could I possibly [honestly] agree to follow the [unknown] judge's [unknown] instructions on the [unknown] law? It would have been like signing a blank check -- on someone else's bank account.

What do you think "determine the law" means, if it doesn't mean "determine the law"?

[grampster]

birdman:  Cornell University Law School/Legal Information Institute

Directed Verdict

 A ruling entered by a trial judge after determining that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to reach a different conclusion.  The trial court may grant a directed verdict either sua sponte or upon a motion by either party.  A directed verdict may be granted at any time, but usually occurs after at least one party has been fully heard.

Motions for a directed verdict are governed by: Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

For a discussion of directed verdicts in the context of criminal litigation:  See Carlisle v. United States, 517 US 416 (1996).

[birdman]

birdman:  Cornell University Law School/Legal Information Institute

Directed Verdict

 A ruling entered by a trial judge after determining that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to reach a different conclusion.  The trial court may grant a directed verdict either sua sponte or upon a motion by either party.  A directed verdict may be granted at any time, but usually occurs after at least one party has been fully heard.

Motions for a directed verdict are governed by: Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

For a discussion of directed verdicts in the context of criminal litigation:  See Carlisle v. United States, 517 US 416 (1996).

Can you tell me how often directed guilty verdicts occur in criminal proceedings?

[Perd Hapley]

What do you think "determine the law" means, if it doesn't mean "determine the law"?

It means "an exchange created by the state."

[grampster]

I have no idea, though it seems to me that it would be very rare.

[De Selby]

Can you tell me how often directed guilty verdicts occur in criminal proceedings?

Never, they are not allowed in the American system.

Hawk, you described a good example of why they ask those questions of juries.  The legal system isn't supposed to be a popularity contest of laws - that's what politics are for.  The court is meant to apply the law the same way for everyone.  Can't do that if jurors want to ignore all judicial interpretation of what the law actually means.

Gramps, a bit of digging on summary judgement/JNOV/directed verdict will actually yield cases that help illustrate how ridiculous the nulli arguments are.  Those cases are all about judges deciding law versus juries deciding fact.

Still, because jury verdicts in crimes to acquit are unreviewable (convictions mostly are too), there's the power to acquit for whatever reason.