Post by: drewtam on August 16, 2008, 05:07:35 AM
http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/022959.php
Which leads to this report on The Volokh Conspiracy...
http://volokh.com/posts/1218815216.shtml
Quote
Judge Nullifies Juror Nullification:
A very interesting post today by Tim Lynch on Cato @ Liberty on a recent jury trial in a drug case:
It was supposed to be just another federal drug prosecution. The federal prosecutors introduced evidence that the man on trial was involved in the black market drug trade. The defense attorney said the government agents entrapped his client. And then the twelve citizen-jurors retired to deliberate the outcome of the case.
But then something unusual happened. The jury sent a note to the trial judge with the following query: Since the Constitution needed to be amended in 1919 to authorize federal criminal prosecutions for manufacturing and smuggling alcohol, a juror wanted to know from the judge where is the constitutional grant of authority to ban mere possession of cocaine today?
Thats a fair question. It is a point that has been made in Catos publications (go here (pdf) and here (pdf)) and a point that has been made by Justice Clarence Thomas, among many others. Federal District Court Judge William Young was startled. He says he has been on the bench for 30 years and has never faced a situation where a juror was challenging the legitimacy of a criminal law. Young tried to assure the jury that the federal drug laws are constitutional because the Supreme Court has interpreted the commerce clause quite expansively. When the jury sent out more notes about a juror that wasnt going to sign off on an unconstitutional prosecution, Young halted the proceedings to identify the problem juror. Once discovered, that juror was replaced with an alternateover the objections of defense counsel. Shortly thereafter, the new jury returned with guilty verdicts on several cocaine-related charges.
It is an extraordinary thing for a judge to meddle with the jury in the middle of its deliberations. So, to justify his removal of the problem juror, a man named Thomas Eddlem, Judge Young issued a 40-page memorandum of law (pdf). I happen to know and respect Judge Young. I invited him to speak here at Cato about the awful federal sentencing guidelines, but his legal memorandum in this case is remarkably thin. I will briefly respond to his substantive arguments below.
To read his analysis go to Juror Becomes Fly in the Ointment.
For those with a serious interest in jury nullification, I highly recommend Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine (paperback) by Clay Conrad, which is the best work on the subject since Lysander Spooner's Trial by Jury (1852).
There is little question that, at the Founding, jurors were triers of both the law and the facts. In essence, this provided a popular check on an overreaching legislature and a supine judiciary, although a check that would only operate on a case-by-case basis. A jury could find that a statute was unjust generally, or only as applied in the particular case. This would affect the general enforceability of a statute only if many juries agreed. Although juries retain the power to refuse to apply an unjust law, beginning in the Nineteenth Century, judges started prohibiting lawyers from advocating this to a jury upon pain of contempt. The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is a non-profit organization aiming to inform all Americans about their rights, powers and responsibilities when serving as trial juror. Click on the link to learn more about jury nullification.
A very interesting post today by Tim Lynch on Cato @ Liberty on a recent jury trial in a drug case:
It was supposed to be just another federal drug prosecution. The federal prosecutors introduced evidence that the man on trial was involved in the black market drug trade. The defense attorney said the government agents entrapped his client. And then the twelve citizen-jurors retired to deliberate the outcome of the case.
But then something unusual happened. The jury sent a note to the trial judge with the following query: Since the Constitution needed to be amended in 1919 to authorize federal criminal prosecutions for manufacturing and smuggling alcohol, a juror wanted to know from the judge where is the constitutional grant of authority to ban mere possession of cocaine today?
Thats a fair question. It is a point that has been made in Catos publications (go here (pdf) and here (pdf)) and a point that has been made by Justice Clarence Thomas, among many others. Federal District Court Judge William Young was startled. He says he has been on the bench for 30 years and has never faced a situation where a juror was challenging the legitimacy of a criminal law. Young tried to assure the jury that the federal drug laws are constitutional because the Supreme Court has interpreted the commerce clause quite expansively. When the jury sent out more notes about a juror that wasnt going to sign off on an unconstitutional prosecution, Young halted the proceedings to identify the problem juror. Once discovered, that juror was replaced with an alternateover the objections of defense counsel. Shortly thereafter, the new jury returned with guilty verdicts on several cocaine-related charges.
It is an extraordinary thing for a judge to meddle with the jury in the middle of its deliberations. So, to justify his removal of the problem juror, a man named Thomas Eddlem, Judge Young issued a 40-page memorandum of law (pdf). I happen to know and respect Judge Young. I invited him to speak here at Cato about the awful federal sentencing guidelines, but his legal memorandum in this case is remarkably thin. I will briefly respond to his substantive arguments below.
To read his analysis go to Juror Becomes Fly in the Ointment.
For those with a serious interest in jury nullification, I highly recommend Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine (paperback) by Clay Conrad, which is the best work on the subject since Lysander Spooner's Trial by Jury (1852).
There is little question that, at the Founding, jurors were triers of both the law and the facts. In essence, this provided a popular check on an overreaching legislature and a supine judiciary, although a check that would only operate on a case-by-case basis. A jury could find that a statute was unjust generally, or only as applied in the particular case. This would affect the general enforceability of a statute only if many juries agreed. Although juries retain the power to refuse to apply an unjust law, beginning in the Nineteenth Century, judges started prohibiting lawyers from advocating this to a jury upon pain of contempt. The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is a non-profit organization aiming to inform all Americans about their rights, powers and responsibilities when serving as trial juror. Click on the link to learn more about jury nullification.
This is extremely disturbing. Judges do not have the power to remove jurors they don't agree with politically. We might as well burn the constitution now. And no, that is not hyperbole nor sarcasm. This is a serious violation of rights and power of the citizen in the judicial system.
Next stop, if the jury hands down a verdict the judge finds extreme, he'll replace the jury with one that'll vote the way he thinks.
Why bother with juries altogether? If the judge can nullify the jury; might as well just let him decide the verdict directly.
This is crazy and frightening.
[edited to add the article that is linked]
Post by: LAK on August 16, 2008, 06:00:04 AM
There is a simple remedy for some of this. If you are a juror - and understanding what your rights and responsibilities are as a juror - do not over explain your decision. In fact, as a juror, you can simply say, "I do not believe this person is guilty" and stick to it. You do not have to explain "why" to anyone.
Post by: roo_ster on August 16, 2008, 06:37:43 AM
Judges, when it comes to JN, do the same with juries.
Post by: thebaldguy on August 16, 2008, 09:18:32 AM
An example would be a state bans sex toys, and for a trial they have to decide if a person was guilty of using a sex toy. If a juror thinks the law is wrong, they can acquit.
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 16, 2008, 11:09:27 AM
I always thought that jurors could acquit if they felt a law was immoral or unconstitutional.
Nope.
Nor can they refuse to render a decision because they don't like the law.
My question is why the judge didn't get of this guy before the trial, and if he didn't because he didn't know about the guy's objections, did the guy lie in jury selection?
A (formerly) anti-gun friend was disqualified for being anti-gun in a homicide case involving a gun. People who are insistent that all drug regulations are wrong are unusually disqualified from drug related cases.
Post by: HankB on August 16, 2008, 12:36:24 PM
When judges pull cr@p like this, why should anyone respect any law?
Imagine what the reaction will be if, in some future case, a well-informed juror (or even a future defense attorney!) sends out a question to the effect of "Since you, as the trial judge, have a history of meddling with jury compostition in order to generate the verdict you want, what assurance do we have that you will not play game with THIS jury if things don't turn out the way you want?"
Post by: Werewolf on August 16, 2008, 12:37:54 PM
I always thought that jurors could acquit if they felt a law was immoral or unconstitutional.
Nope.
Nor can they refuse to render a decision because they don't like the law.
You are wrong. Juries judge not only the facts of a case but the law itself. That's a dirty little secret that judges and DA's don't want Jurors to know. And judges do not have to tell jurors about it either which is IMO wrong but that's just the way it is. I think in the case cited by the OP that the judge's replacement of the juror is probably grounds for appeal.
Here's one link that explains Jury Nullification: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html
Here's another that is longer and links to other sites: http://www.friesian.com/nullif.htm
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 16, 2008, 12:40:21 PM
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 16, 2008, 12:59:44 PM
Here's some additional information. Obviously, this is not legal advice:
ALR § 681. Jury as judges of law; jury nullification
Sometimes, under express statutory or constitutional provisions, the jury in criminal trials or at least in trials for certain particular crimes has been given the right to determine questions of both law and fact.[FN1] Such provisions are not intended to give the jury the right to disregard the law.[FN2] While the jury, under such a provision, has the right to determine both the law and the facts, it is not strictly true that it is the sole judge of the law of the case. Such a provision means that the jury has the right to determine all questions of law applicable to such matters as they are required to consider in making up their verdict. It is their duty to apply the law to the facts of the case, and they have to be judge of both and to come to a conclusion as to both.[FN3]
The constitutionality of a statute under which a person is prosecuted is a matter for the court to determine, and it is the duty of the jury to accept the court's determination.[FN4] A jury may not determine or weigh the utility or validity of a law.[FN5]
Practice Tip: "Jury nullification" is a jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself, or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury's sense of justice, morality, or fairness.[FN6] A court properly denies defense counsel the opportunity to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury. The so-called "mercy-dispensing power" is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury, and to permit defense counsel to encourage the jury to abdicate its primary function would directly contravene the trial court's authority to instruct the jury that they must follow and properly apply the law.[FN7] Jury nullification is inconsistent with a jury's duty to return a guilty verdict of the highest crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt.[FN8]
From your link:
Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late 1800s. In 1895, in United States v Sparf, the U. S. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney's request to let the jury know of their nullification power.
Courts recently have been reluctant to encourage jury nullification, and in fact have taken several steps to prevent it. In most jurisdictions, judges instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them, whether they agree with the law or not. Only in a handful of states are jurors told that they have the power to judge both the facts and the law of the case. Most judges also will prohibit attorneys from using their closing arguments to directly appeal to jurors to nullify the law.
Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right, when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her intention to vote to nullify the law.
Post by: K Frame on August 16, 2008, 01:49:42 PM
Yet.
Moving to Round Table.
Post by: De Selby on August 16, 2008, 01:58:53 PM
seems like another wanna be lawyer/activist got on a jury, and got hiumself off of it too. ever wonder why juries don't get top question witnesses etc? good luck on thar appeal. don't hold your breath
Nice one sentence summary-that is almost certainly what happened here.
Jury deliberations are generally beyond review, so if most people on a jury don't want to convict, they can just acquit and refuse to justify their decision.
If there's one guy holding up the process because he doesn't think income tax/drug law/federal policing are constitutional, this case here is exactly what will happen.
Post by: Tallpine on August 16, 2008, 02:24:44 PM
I will never vote to convict of a law I don't believe in - which means that I will likely never serve on a criminal jury. I've already been "excused" from a federal jury over that (and they haven't called me back, either
).
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 16, 2008, 03:42:59 PM
Well, of course the government doesn't want to allow the jury to judge the law
And strangely enough, the gov't thinks it gets to decide what is legal and what isn't.
It seems to me that jury nullification is fine and dandy, but when people confuse the jury box and soapbox, no one gets any justice. It's not about the juries' agendas. Demanding that the court allow you to nullify the law should get one thrown out. Voting yer conscience and stfu-ing is always good, in my humble and inexpert opinion.
Post by: Hawkmoon on August 16, 2008, 05:12:08 PM
This judge over-stepped his authority in a HUGE way.
The juror should have kept his pie hole closed and just voted to acquit. Instead, he conscienciously tried to understand the law that he is (was) the trier of, and was punished for it. As the saying goes, "No good deed shall go unpunished."
Post by: One of Many on August 16, 2008, 05:22:17 PM
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 16, 2008, 06:06:56 PM
BridgeWalker, you are citing a law school text book. I have no doubt that they are teaching you jury nullification isn't valid -- but they're lyin' to ya.
No, I'm not. ALR's are not text books, more general legal encylopedias.
Quote
Read that information the link to the Fully Informed Jury Association will take you to. The Constitution hasn't changed since an early Chief Justice (was it John Jay?) affirmed that the jury shall be the trier of the facts and of the law.
Nor has it changed since Dred Scott. And I'm sure there's an organization out there that insists that income taxes are illegal.
Quote
This judge over-stepped his authority in a HUGE way.
Nope.
Quote
The juror should have kept his pie hole closed and just voted to acquit.
Yep.
Quote
Instead, he conscienciously tried to understand the law that he is (was) the trier of, and was punished for it.
How, exactly, was he punished?
Quote
As the saying goes, "No good deed shall go unpunished."
I don't think that turning a duty to deliberate in private about one case into an opportunity to grandstand about generalities is a good deed.
[/quote]
Post by: RevDisk on August 16, 2008, 08:55:30 PM
I always thought that jurors could acquit if they felt a law was immoral or unconstitutional.
Nope.
Nor can they refuse to render a decision because they don't like the law.
My question is why the judge didn't get of this guy before the trial, and if he didn't because he didn't know about the guy's objections, did the guy lie in jury selection?
If a juror renders a verdict that violates the Constitution by following proper instructions given to him/her by the judge and/or prosecutor, he's doing the legal thing. But the morally wrong thing. Not saying you need to turn the jury box into a soap box, but I thought one was supposed to judge the law as well as the arguments.
Best thing to do is, as others point out, STFU, cast your verdict properly, and let the judge toss you out in order replace you with someone more pliable.
(I wasn't aware it was kosher to toss out a jury because they issued a verdict that a judge didn't like. But apparently it is. No idea why. Any more legally minded folks care to let me know the score on the judge's legal abilities to tamper with juries?)
Post by: RaspberrySurprise on August 16, 2008, 11:59:33 PM
Quote
If a juror renders a verdict that violates the Constitution by following proper instructions given to him/her by the judge and/or prosecutor, he's doing the legal thing. But the morally wrong thing.
I don't see how violating the Constitution could ever be the "legal thing," but I think I know what you mean.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 17, 2008, 06:03:30 AM
Post by: ilbob on August 17, 2008, 06:24:16 AM
you fellers really won't like a "directed verdict " then
In a criminal case, a directed verdict is a decision by the presiding judge that the prosecution did not present enough of a case to justify a guilty verdict. Its unlikely a jury would ignore such a directive. In fact, I am not even sure the jury gets to decide in such cases anymore. A judge cannot issue a directed verdict of guilty, only not guilty.
Post by: LAK on August 17, 2008, 09:46:16 AM
Quote
but I thought one was supposed to judge the law as well as the arguments
This is correct; the jury has the right to judge the law and the facts.Thus if a law is passed say; "all [race] folk must pay a special tax to gov", and the defendant in fact "did not pay it", a jury can still say "not guilty [of a crime]".
That is why we have jury nullification.
Post by: HankB on August 17, 2008, 12:12:01 PM
Post by: RevDisk on August 17, 2008, 12:20:52 PM
Quote
If a juror renders a verdict that violates the Constitution by following proper instructions given to him/her by the judge and/or prosecutor, he's doing the legal thing. But the morally wrong thing.
I don't see how violating the Constitution could ever be the "legal thing," but I think I know what you mean.
If you ever want to entertain yourself, print out a copy of the bill of rights without the additional amentments (just to save on time), make sure there is plenty of space between amendments. Under each amendment, list the violations you can think of off the top of your head.
Then do yourself a favor and burn the list after you're done.
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 17, 2008, 12:40:35 PM
RevDisk
Thus if a law is passed say; "all [race] folk must pay a special tax to gov", and the defendant in fact "did not pay it", a jury can still say "not guilty [of a crime]".
That is why we have jury nullification.
Quote
but I thought one was supposed to judge the law as well as the arguments
This is correct; the jury has the right to judge the law and the facts.Thus if a law is passed say; "all [race] folk must pay a special tax to gov", and the defendant in fact "did not pay it", a jury can still say "not guilty [of a crime]".
That is why we have jury nullification.
Well, no, we don't.
But hey, I think it's great that you all think that laws aren't nearly so important as your personal feelings.
Post by: RevDisk on August 17, 2008, 12:58:14 PM
But hey, I think it's great that you all think that laws aren't nearly so important as your personal feelings.
I'm sure your involvement in the law has imparted some latin, yes?
To quote Tacitus, Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Your best guess, please. How many laws do we have, total?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 17, 2008, 01:08:04 PM
Such was the original understanding and intended purpose of a jury at the time the US constitution was drafted.
Jury nullification is protected in state constitutions as well. My own state constitution (Indiana) spells it out pretty clearly. Article I, Section 19: "In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts." Clearly the jury is supposed to judge both the fact of the case and the merits of the law being applied, not merely the facts alone.
Ask yourself what other purpose a jury could have, BridgeWalker. If the only purpose was to weigh the evidence, then a jury wouldn't be necessary at all. A trained judge would be much better qualified, being schooled and experienced in matters of evidence. So why bother with a panel of laypeople who don't understand the nature of fact and evidence? What benefit did the framers have in mind when they placed the final power of conviction into the hands of the people instead of the state?
Post by: roo_ster on August 17, 2008, 01:54:04 PM
Having laymen on juries as the final arbiter of fact and law seems an unacceptable loss of power in this more enlightened and lawyer-ridden age.
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 17, 2008, 02:00:04 PM
Yeah, I guess she really was asking for it with that skirt. Guess we all know that no one his color from his neighborhood is worth giving the benefit of the doubt. Guess those legislators and executives and judges don't really mean jack. Law is what I say it is.
Hm, or...nope. Sorry. The law does exist. You don't like it, fine. But no, the courts do not an obligation to validate a juror's insistence that he gets to define the law.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 17, 2008, 02:23:50 PM
No potential for abuse of power there, no sirree.
Blind faith in the law and those who enforce it is folly. Final judgment of the facts and the law was placed in the hands of average lay people for a reason. A darned good reason, at that. If you fancy yourself a future lawyer, you would do well to learn that reason and take it to heart.
If you value the integrity of the law, you should be alarmed that a judge thinks 12 out of 13 guilty votes amounts to a unanimous conviction.
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 17, 2008, 02:32:22 PM
Right. Because only elites like lawyers, judges and politicians should have any power in the prosecutorial process. Peons and "the people" should know their place and stay out of such matters.
Real fan of the constitution there, eh? Except for articles one, two, and three. Hm.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 17, 2008, 02:35:56 PM
Judges don't get to replace jurors that vote "not guilty" over and over again until they find 12 who will all vote "guilty."
Post by: roo_ster on August 17, 2008, 03:09:51 PM
Also, all those things mentioned:
Quote
Yeah, I guess she really was asking for it with that skirt. Guess we all know that no one his color from his neighborhood is worth giving the benefit of the doubt. Guess those legislators and executives and judges don't really mean jack. Law is what I say it is.
are as applicable to prosecutors, judges, and LEOs.I would argue that they are MORE prevalent among the government agents than among juries.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 17, 2008, 03:14:25 PM
Right. Because only elites like lawyers, judges and politicians should have any power in the prosecutorial process. Peons and "the people" should know their place and stay out of such matters.
Real fan of the constitution there, eh? Except for articles one, two, and three. Hm.
The ones that give Congress [and thus, The People] the power to redefine the courts' structure and power at will?
Post by: RevDisk on August 17, 2008, 03:16:29 PM
Yep. Because it is an awesome idea for no laws to really mean anything whatsoever. It should all be up to what a couple of guys decide.
Yeah, I guess she really was asking for it with that skirt. Guess we all know that no one his color from his neighborhood is worth giving the benefit of the doubt. Guess those legislators and executives and judges don't really mean jack. Law is what I say it is.
Hm, or...nope. Sorry. The law does exist. You don't like it, fine. But no, the courts do not an obligation to validate a juror's insistence that he gets to define the law.
Yeah, I guess she really was asking for it with that skirt. Guess we all know that no one his color from his neighborhood is worth giving the benefit of the doubt. Guess those legislators and executives and judges don't really mean jack. Law is what I say it is.
Hm, or...nope. Sorry. The law does exist. You don't like it, fine. But no, the courts do not an obligation to validate a juror's insistence that he gets to define the law.
No, not "a couple of guys". A group of citizens selected from the whole of the population of citizens. Of course the law exists. But the law specifically included the right to trial by juries. As others pointed out, why have a bunch of random citizens decide just the facts of a case? The Constitution is very much about breaking up power monopolies. I'd argue it's one of the central points of the Constitution. Specifying who gets what power so no one person or branch gets too much. The Judicial branch has a large degree of independence, as the Supreme Court of the US can only theoretically be overruled by a Constitutional amendment on any issue. So a convenient way of mitigating their absolute power is to balance it with juries.
The right of an independent jury is not to promote racism and misogyny. These things do happen, throughout all branches of government. The law, as you point out, does exist and did enforce racism and misogyny for hundreds of years. I personally believe that most gun control laws are Legalistic forms of racism and misogyny.
Bridge Walker, I'm not honestly trying to pick on you. I know the school of thought to which you subscribe. It's the overwhelming opinion of the Legal community. But the overwhelming opinion of the Legal community is not the same as the law, as you nobly hold in high regard. The law exists, whether the Legal community likes it or not.
Call me insufficiently patriotic, but I always had a high regard for my state's Constitution. I think it is often better framed than the US Constitution.
Quote
Freedom of Press and Speech; Libels
Section 7.
The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever by made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.
Section 7.
The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever by made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.
No doubt, you will argue that only charges of libel are specified that the jury should determine the law and the facts.
Even if you disagree with me, I still do recommend you read a copy of the PA Constitution, it's rather facinating legal work.
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 17, 2008, 03:33:23 PM
Bridge Walker, I'm not honestly trying to pick on you. I know the school of thought to which you subscribe. It's the overwhelming opinion of the Legal community. But the overwhelming opinion of the Legal community is not the same as the law, as you nobly hold in high regard. The law exists, whether the Legal community likes it or not.
No, I don't think you do. I have agreed that in fact the right to do this does exist. A jury verdict cannot be overturned. The problem here is that that is not what has happened in this case. What happened here is that a juror decided to turn one man's trial into another man's soapbox. His interest was not in voting the way he believed his duty was to vote. his interest was in attempting to compel the court to respond to his particular act of activism. That is not the point of a trial.
Quote
No doubt, you will argue that only charges of libel are specified that the jury should determine the law and the facts.
Huh? There's gotta be a typo in there somewhere. I have no idea what you are saying.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 17, 2008, 04:04:15 PM
in my experience when ever some one prefacesa it with "clearly" it is anything but clear. its like a car sales man saaying "to tell you the truth" its an aknowledgment that other things they say aren't true.
jury nullification has brought us things like that portrayed in to kill a mockingbird. countless times. its amusing how folks get all atwitter and forget that reallity in favor of their fantasy where the jury striking out on its own makes it all better. usually the thinking of folks that have not been in court much
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 17, 2008, 05:00:46 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 17, 2008, 05:02:30 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 17, 2008, 05:16:58 PM
There's no assurance that rampant and open jury nullification will result only in fewer convictions. It can just as result go the other way.
The beauty of the American system is that:
1. It requires a full unanimous vote to convict.
2. Guilty verdicts can be appealed, but not vice versa.
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 17, 2008, 05:23:32 PM
When the court participates in communicating to juries that the law doesn't matter nearly so much as their personal feelings, then you get problematic situations, including convictions that run counter to the law.
Post by: alan2 on August 17, 2008, 05:46:26 PM
Thats a fair question. It is a point that has been made in Catos publications (go here (pdf) and here (pdf)) and a point that has been made by Justice Clarence Thomas, among many others. Federal District Court Judge William Young was startled. He says he has been on the bench for 30 years and has never faced a situation where a juror was challenging the legitimacy of a criminal law. Young tried to assure the jury that the federal drug laws are constitutional because the Supreme Court has interpreted the commerce clause quite expansively. When the jury sent out more notes about a juror that wasnt going to sign off on an unconstitutional prosecution, Young halted the proceedings to identify the problem juror. Once discovered, that juror was replaced with an alternateover the objections of defense counsel. Shortly thereafter, the new jury returned with guilty verdicts on several cocaine-related charges.
------------------------------
Might it be that Judge Young had led an unduly sheltered life, or could it possibly be that the various juries that deliberated on cases he was involved hadn't learned that their heads were supposed to sereve purposes other than as hatracks?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 17, 2008, 05:56:44 PM
Let me elaborate, again. I'm not saying that juries' reasoning needs to be open to scrutiny. I'm saying that jury nullification should not and cannot become a matter of judicial participation/encouragement--as is being demanded in this case.
When the court participates in communicating to juries that the law doesn't matter nearly so much as their personal feelings, then you get problematic situations, including convictions that run counter to the law.
Jury nullification only heightens the standard the prosecution must meet for a conviction. The jury must agree that the facts prove the defendant violated the law in question AND that the law in question is just to apply. When the court participates in communicating to juries that the law doesn't matter nearly so much as their personal feelings, then you get problematic situations, including convictions that run counter to the law.
Jury nullification isn't about voting based on feelings. It isn't about convicting people counter to the law or evidence. It's about making sure that the defendant really, truly, justly deserves to go to jail for what he did.
What if the juror in question has simply voted "not-guilty" without giving his reason? Would you be nearly as upset about it then?
Post by: HankB on August 17, 2008, 06:58:12 PM
The beauty of the American system is that:
1. It requires a full unanimous vote to convict.
In the subject case, it clearly did not . . . assuming a full dozen jurors, it only required a 12 of 13 majority . . . the judge replaced a dissident juror in order to get the verdict he wanted.
1. It requires a full unanimous vote to convict.
Post by: RevDisk on August 17, 2008, 07:54:28 PM
Bridge Walker, I'm not honestly trying to pick on you. I know the school of thought to which you subscribe. It's the overwhelming opinion of the Legal community. But the overwhelming opinion of the Legal community is not the same as the law, as you nobly hold in high regard. The law exists, whether the Legal community likes it or not.
No, I don't think you do. I have agreed that in fact the right to do this does exist. A jury verdict cannot be overturned. The problem here is that that is not what has happened in this case. What happened here is that a juror decided to turn one man's trial into another man's soapbox. His interest was not in voting the way he believed his duty was to vote. his interest was in attempting to compel the court to respond to his particular act of activism. That is not the point of a trial.
Whoops, then I misinterpreted your comments. I still say the man's mistake was opening his mouth and inserting his foot. The only consistent advice I've ever gotten from lawyers is "When in doubt, always STFU."
Quote
Quote
No doubt, you will argue that only charges of libel are specified that the jury should determine the law and the facts.
Huh? There's gotta be a typo in there somewhere. I have no idea what you are saying.
It was a joke. Obviously badly parsed. Last fragment of Section 7 of the PA Constitution: "in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases."
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 17, 2008, 08:38:57 PM
Post by: seeker_two on August 18, 2008, 01:23:08 AM
Post by: LAK on August 18, 2008, 03:10:39 AM
Someone may have, for instances, technically violated the law. That is to say, they did violate the law in all matters of fact. However, in the matter of intent, perhaps they did not. This is quite common and may arise for a great number of reasons.
All laws are, jokes and "silly" laws aside, in place for a specific reason. The purpose of each law - the intention of the legislating body in passing the law - must also have a bearing beyond fact alone. Again, someone might have technically violated the law based on facts alone, but not the spirit of the law - the intention of the legislating body.
These are also reasons why the jury has the right and responsibility to judge the law as well as the facts.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 18, 2008, 04:44:39 AM
Post by: ilbob on August 18, 2008, 05:08:18 AM
in the real world, as opposed to the internet fantasy one, we had a "lady" in dc who refused to convict a guy for a murder in spite of a real solid case where the other 11 were sure. she was quite candid that her only reason was "i don't wanna send another young black man to jail!" he walkled and killed 5 more folks nbefore he finally went down. thats the reallity . i know its fun to imagine being the ron paul supporter on the jury who sets the wrongs of the world right but its only like that in your imagination or on the internet
This is a common problem in NYC. A lot of black juries just won't convict young black male defendants. It has led to all kinds of attempts by the court system to deal with the problem, but none of the solutions seem to be a real answer.I just don't see how you can take so called "jury nullification" out of the system. In my mind, it is up to every jury to decide for it self if the guy did it, and if he did it, was there some justification for it that mitigates him doing the act. This happens all the time. People get charged with serious crimes and juries often find them guilty only on lesser charges, because they believe that even though they guy may have done it, in this case the potential punishment is too severe to convict them on that charge.
I don't believe it is appropriate for a jury member to attempt to decide that a law is generally a bad idea, or even whether the law is constitutional. I do think that they have the power and duty to evaluate the specific case they are dealing with, but not a specific law in general.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 18, 2008, 12:10:49 PM
in the real world, as opposed to the internet fantasy one, we had a "lady" in dc who refused to convict a guy for a murder in spite of a real solid case where the other 11 were sure. she was quite candid that her only reason was "i don't wanna send another young black man to jail!" he walkled and killed 5 more folks nbefore he finally went down. thats the reallity . i know its fun to imagine being the ron paul supporter on the jury who sets the wrongs of the world right but its only like that in your imagination or on the internet
I will immediately inform William Penn that his trial never took place.
And that no person was never put in prison who should have walked free, and would have if not for the jury being misled as to its power.
I will go tell Cory Mae that he's free, then.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 18, 2008, 12:38:26 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 18, 2008, 12:41:27 PM
Post by: LAK on August 19, 2008, 09:49:56 AM
Quote
you would have to be here to tell him as opposed to reading about it and trying to imagine what its really like. and if you do make it over here i can introduce you to the family of one of the folks the good juror freed. as well as show you the tombstones of 3 of the others . you believe that a juror was the answer to mayes problems? a mistrial will just get him another trial. unless they vote to aquit the state can and often will run it up the flagpole one more time. a juror isn't the answer no matter how heroic it imagines
Yep, not perfect; just better than the fate of those accused being decided by a single man or woman with the state's interest above everyone else's. That is why we have juries as well.
Post by: GigaBuist on August 19, 2008, 11:50:39 AM
in the real world, as opposed to the internet fantasy one, we had a "lady" in dc who refused to convict a guy for a murder in spite of a real solid case where the other 11 were sure. she was quite candid that her only reason was "i don't wanna send another young black man to jail!" he walkled and killed 5 more folks nbefore he finally went down. thats the reallity . i know its fun to imagine being the ron paul supporter on the jury who sets the wrongs of the world right but its only like that in your imagination or on the internet
How does a hung jury result in a murderer not getting another trial? Did the prosecutor just throw up his hands and say "Screw it!" after the first round?
That story doesn't make any sense.
What's the name of the murderer?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 19, 2008, 04:32:10 PM
Quote
you would have to be here to tell him as opposed to reading about it and trying to imagine what its really like. and if you do make it over here i can introduce you to the family of one of the folks the good juror freed. as well as show you the tombstones of 3 of the others . you believe that a juror was the answer to mayes problems? a mistrial will just get him another trial. unless they vote to aquit the state can and often will run it up the flagpole one more time. a juror isn't the answer no matter how heroic it imagines
Yep, not perfect; just better than the fate of those accused being decided by a single man or woman with the state's interest above everyone else's. That is why we have juries as well.funny i thought the courts were representing the people
even funnier the bleat about fate being decided by one man. isn't that what you're cheering for? 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
" On August 19, 1991, after a traffic accident in which a black child was killed by a car carrying a Jewish leader, a black mob rioted down a street in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, shouting "Lets go get the Jews." A Jewish scholar visiting New York named Yankel Rosenbaum was stabbed to death when they encountered him on the street. Within minutes police arrived and apprehended Lemrick Nelson, Jr. at the scene with a bloody knife in his pocket. He was taken to the dying Rosenbaum, who identified Nelson as his attacker. Nelson later admitted the crime to two Brooklyn detectives, and signed a written confession. Prosecutors presented this evidence to a predominantly black jury. They refused to convict Nelson. After the acquittal, jurors celebrated with Nelson at a local restaurant. (Nelson later moved to Georgia and was convicted of slashing a schoolmate.)
" Darryl Smith, a black drug dealer in Washington, D.C., tortured eighteen-year-old African American Willie Wilson to death as he begged for mercy in front of witnesses. Despite massive amounts of evidence linking him to the crime, an all-black D.C. jury acquitted Smith in his 1990 murder trial. According to other jurors, forewoman Valerie Blackmon refused to convict because "she didnt want to send any more young black men to jail." After long deliberations, other members of the panel caved in to Blackmons argument that the "criminal justice system is stacked against blacks" and let Smith off, though most believed that he was guilty. Three weeks after the verdict, a letter from an anonymous juror arrived at D.C. Superior Court expressing regret over the verdict
lots more where that came from rah rah go team
Post by: SteveS on August 19, 2008, 04:58:15 PM
A jury verdict cannot be overturned.
Sure it can, under some circumstances. A judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). Prior to the verdicts, the judge can also order a jury to come to a certain verdict.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 19, 2008, 05:19:18 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 19, 2008, 05:26:43 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 19, 2008, 05:45:47 PM
whats the point of a jury that doesn't look at the facts
Nobody is suggesting the jury should not look at the facts. Please do not distort the line of argument.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 19, 2008, 06:28:07 PM
if what he did was ok then so was the bimbo letting the murderer off in fact rail roading an aquiital. how youy gonna distinguish between the 2 morons? they both feel emphatically their cause is just
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 19, 2008, 06:29:07 PM
I'm perfectly okay with the notion that some murderers might get free.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 19, 2008, 06:31:41 PM
Jurors who vote to acquit or convict based solely on the race of the defendant are not doing their duty as jurors. They're simply being racist. Racism != jury nullification.
Post by: De Selby on August 19, 2008, 06:45:28 PM
It's not about a soapbox. It's about doing your duty as a juror, which is to judge both the facts AND the law. Please stop trying contort this issue into something it isn't.
Jurors who vote to acquit or convict based solely on the race of the defendant are not doing their duty as jurors. They're simply being racist. Racism != jury nullification.
Jurors who vote to acquit or convict based solely on the race of the defendant are not doing their duty as jurors. They're simply being racist. Racism != jury nullification.
You also have to consider the dishonesty element-jurors are asked questions before they are empaneled, including whether or not they'd be willing to enforce the law....
If people refrain from perjury, we'll almost never have this situation and the point is moot.
The jury box is not designed for everyone to weigh the law every time-that's what the Congress is for. The jury box only protects against the most egregious and unpopular of acts...it was never designed to be a debating society for the validity of laws.
Debate your views on the law during elections; that's why we have them. When you go to jury duty, it's time to stow the soap box.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 19, 2008, 06:47:19 PM
Quote
jurors are asked questions before they are empaneled, including whether or not they'd be willing to enforce the law....
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is part of the problem.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 19, 2008, 06:48:57 PM
Post by: De Selby on August 19, 2008, 06:53:42 PM
I think he juror in question would have been better off keeping his questions and opinions about the law to himself. That said, he still has a duty to judge the facts and the law, and it sounds like he did the right thing with his vote.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law of your state-"judge the law" means the jury has to decide as a final matter what the specific statute requires.
It does not mean that they get to decide whether or not they like it; only that they decide what conduct is and is not actually prohibited by the law.
Example: Think of a law that says "No person shall intentionally defraud another." Judging the law means asking: What exactly does that mean, and what is the precise standard to be applied in any particular allegation of fraud?
It does not mean you get to sit there and argue about whether or not there should be a law against fraud.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 19, 2008, 06:56:59 PM
It's not about a soapbox. It's about doing your duty as a juror, which is to judge both the facts AND the law. Please stop trying contort this issue into something it isn't.
Jurors who vote to acquit or convict based solely on the race of the defendant are not doing their duty as jurors. They're simply being racist. Racism != jury nullification.
jurors who vote based on the facts are doing their job.ones who vote their feelings are not.Jurors who vote to acquit or convict based solely on the race of the defendant are not doing their duty as jurors. They're simply being racist. Racism != jury nullification.
in fact though this case was about someone using it as a soapbox. if they had just voted to aquitt we never woulda heard about it this puff of reallity is over and we can return you to your regularlly scheduled fantasies of "it coulda happened that way"
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 19, 2008, 07:04:39 PM
I think he juror in question would have been better off keeping his questions and opinions about the law to himself. That said, he still has a duty to judge the facts and the law, and it sounds like he did the right thing with his vote.
yea he took his vote home with him and outa the judicial system
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 19, 2008, 07:07:01 PM
I think he juror in question would have been better off keeping his questions and opinions about the law to himself. That said, he still has a duty to judge the facts and the law, and it sounds like he did the right thing with his vote.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law of your state-"judge the law" means the jury has to decide as a final matter what the specific statute requires.
It does not mean that they get to decide whether or not they like it; only that they decide what conduct is and is not actually prohibited by the law.
Example: Think of a law that says "No person shall intentionally defraud another." Judging the law means asking: What exactly does that mean, and what is the precise standard to be applied in any particular allegation of fraud?
It does not mean you get to sit there and argue about whether or not there should be a law against fraud.
Post by: GigaBuist on August 19, 2008, 07:13:12 PM
Quote
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
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.16413/article_detail.asp
Nothing on that page is related to the jury nullification topic at hand.
Post by: De Selby on August 19, 2008, 07:17:38 PM
Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Stone disagrees with you. He once said "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
He didn't mean what you think he meant, either, but the Indiana constitution was not Justice Stone's business.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 19, 2008, 07:18:48 PM
There are supreme court justices who upheld jury nullification. From John Jay, the first Chief Justice, right up into the middle of this century.
There are court rulings, from the Supreme Court and on down, that uphld the right of juries to nullify laws they do not feel are just.
There are rulings that uphold the right of a jury to disregard instructions from the judge if the jurors don't feel that the instructions are just.
There are quotes by Founders in favor of jury nullification. John Adams argued that it was a jury's duty to find the verdict according to their conscience, even if it contradicts the court.
There are numerous state constitutions that guarantee the right of juries to nullify.
This isn't some radical, fringe idea. This is the way juries are supposed to function. It's the civic duty of all citizens to learn this and understand it, and be willing to carry it out if justice demands it.
Y'all would do well to quit resisting it.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 19, 2008, 07:19:34 PM
Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Stone disagrees with you. He once said "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
He didn't mean what you think he meant, either, but the Indiana constitution was not Justice Stone's business.
Post by: De Selby on August 19, 2008, 07:24:21 PM
There are also people who argue that the overwhelming weight of legal authority proves that the income tax is unconstitutional. This is somewhat similar-there isn't any real legal support for the theory, but you can craft a pretty convincing story by using snippets from the various legal authorities.
Again, most of the claim that there is a precedent for nullification is simply misunderstanding what legal authorities mean when they write about "determining the law." It means to interpret the law and decide what it actually means; not to look at what the law means and then decide whether or not you like it.
On this point there actually is variance and debate-sometimes questions of what the law requires go to a jury, and sometimes they do not. From what I've seen, the vast majority of proponents of jury nullification are citing examples of Supreme Court justices and opinions that are actually talking about handing "questions of law" (ie, what the law means) to the jury, and not about the validity of the law itself.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 19, 2008, 07:34:34 PM
Quote
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
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
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 19, 2008, 07:37:58 PM
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.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 19, 2008, 07:38:21 PM
Quote
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
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
Post by: De Selby on August 19, 2008, 07:41:36 PM
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.
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.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 19, 2008, 07:47:06 PM
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.
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.
Post by: De Selby on August 19, 2008, 07:52:55 PM
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.
Post by: GigaBuist on August 19, 2008, 08:02:56 PM
Quote
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?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 19, 2008, 08:06:49 PM
Quote
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
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
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
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 19, 2008, 08:17:36 PM
Quote
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
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 19, 2008, 08:19:03 PM
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.
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?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 19, 2008, 08:20:31 PM
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
Post by: GigaBuist on August 19, 2008, 09:05:56 PM
Quote
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. Quote
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.Quote
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.
Post by: De Selby on August 19, 2008, 09:09:40 PM
Quote
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.
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.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 19, 2008, 09:47:52 PM
Quote
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?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 19, 2008, 09:55:05 PM
Quote
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.
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.
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.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 19, 2008, 10:04:35 PM
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.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 19, 2008, 10:14:09 PM
Quote
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
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 19, 2008, 10:23:19 PM
at least you didn't preface your guess with "clearly"
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 19, 2008, 10:23:49 PM
Quote
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
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?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 20, 2008, 03:34:18 AM
at least you didn't preface your guess with "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?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 20, 2008, 03:50:46 AM
Quote
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
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?
Post by: roo_ster on August 20, 2008, 04:52:04 AM
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.
Post by: GigaBuist on August 20, 2008, 06:47:22 AM
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
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 20, 2008, 08:20:59 AM
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.
Post by: richyoung on August 20, 2008, 09:31:31 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: ilbob on August 20, 2008, 09:35:59 AM
Post by: richyoung on August 20, 2008, 09:39:15 AM
It is not nearly as pervasive as you think-the problem is that some folks like to make up the law on the internet by taking select quotes from "founding fathers", Supreme Court opinions, and Jurists, when in reality the speakers themselves meant something completely different.
There are also people who argue that the overwhelming weight of legal authority proves that the income tax is unconstitutional. This is somewhat similar-there isn't any real legal support for the theory, but you can craft a pretty convincing story by using snippets from the various legal authorities.
Again, most of the claim that there is a precedent for nullification is simply misunderstanding what legal authorities mean when they write about "determining the law." It means to interpret the law and decide what it actually means; not to look at what the law means and then decide whether or not you like it.
On this point there actually is variance and debate-sometimes questions of what the law requires go to a jury, and sometimes they do not. From what I've seen, the vast majority of proponents of jury nullification are citing examples of Supreme Court justices and opinions that are actually talking about handing "questions of law" (ie, what the law means) to the jury, and not about the validity of the law itself.
There are also people who argue that the overwhelming weight of legal authority proves that the income tax is unconstitutional. This is somewhat similar-there isn't any real legal support for the theory, but you can craft a pretty convincing story by using snippets from the various legal authorities.
Again, most of the claim that there is a precedent for nullification is simply misunderstanding what legal authorities mean when they write about "determining the law." It means to interpret the law and decide what it actually means; not to look at what the law means and then decide whether or not you like it.
On this point there actually is variance and debate-sometimes questions of what the law requires go to a jury, and sometimes they do not. From what I've seen, the vast majority of proponents of jury nullification are citing examples of Supreme Court justices and opinions that are actually talking about handing "questions of law" (ie, what the law means) to the jury, and not about the validity of the law itself.
Not familiar with juries in the 1850s refusing to apply the Fugitive Slave Act, I see...
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 20, 2008, 09:40:11 AM
It is not nearly as pervasive as you think-the problem is that some folks like to make up the law on the internet by taking select quotes from "founding fathers", Supreme Court opinions, and Jurists, when in reality the speakers themselves meant something completely different.
There are also people who argue that the overwhelming weight of legal authority proves that the income tax is unconstitutional. This is somewhat similar-there isn't any real legal support for the theory, but you can craft a pretty convincing story by using snippets from the various legal authorities.
Again, most of the claim that there is a precedent for nullification is simply misunderstanding what legal authorities mean when they write about "determining the law." It means to interpret the law and decide what it actually means; not to look at what the law means and then decide whether or not you like it.
On this point there actually is variance and debate-sometimes questions of what the law requires go to a jury, and sometimes they do not. From what I've seen, the vast majority of proponents of jury nullification are citing examples of Supreme Court justices and opinions that are actually talking about handing "questions of law" (ie, what the law means) to the jury, and not about the validity of the law itself.
There are also people who argue that the overwhelming weight of legal authority proves that the income tax is unconstitutional. This is somewhat similar-there isn't any real legal support for the theory, but you can craft a pretty convincing story by using snippets from the various legal authorities.
Again, most of the claim that there is a precedent for nullification is simply misunderstanding what legal authorities mean when they write about "determining the law." It means to interpret the law and decide what it actually means; not to look at what the law means and then decide whether or not you like it.
On this point there actually is variance and debate-sometimes questions of what the law requires go to a jury, and sometimes they do not. From what I've seen, the vast majority of proponents of jury nullification are citing examples of Supreme Court justices and opinions that are actually talking about handing "questions of law" (ie, what the law means) to the jury, and not about the validity of the law itself.
Not familiar with juries in the 1850s refusing to apply the Fugitive Slave Act, I see...
Or the Zenger case.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 20, 2008, 11:09:15 AM
Back in my prosecuting days, I prosecuted a man for Aggravated Burglary, breaking into a home to steal while someone was present. In this case, the wife was home, working in the basement office. She heard the noise, came up the steps, and found Mr. Bad Guy carrying out her TV. She watches him walk out, get in a car, and writes the plate number on the wall with lipstick (all she had). Detectives trace the car back to his girlfriend, who admits he had the car (then tried to back out, but another story). Find the TV in her apartment, with victim's name on the bottom.
Victim comes to court, ID's Bad Guy, all other evidence put on. Vote was 11-1 guilty. The one hold out engaged in jury nullification. She said that the criminal code was biased against minorities and women, as was the entire system. She would never vote to convict any african american man of any criminal offense. Plus, as a good Christian, she must not judge another, lest she be judged.
Set the case for new trial, as it was a hung jury. Bad Guy makes bond this time. Victim is murdered in her home. Bad Guy's bloody handprint and DNA found at the scene. He was convicted of the murder.
How's that for justice???
Post by: richyoung on August 20, 2008, 11:28:13 AM
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.
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.
Jury Nullification * IS * Common Law - has been ever since William Penn's aquital was upheld.
Post by: richyoung on August 20, 2008, 11:37:45 AM
Boy, I hate it what work gets in the way of a good thread debating legal issues.
Back in my prosecuting days, I prosecuted a man for Aggravated Burglary, breaking into a home to steal while someone was present. In this case, the wife was home, working in the basement office. She heard the noise, came up the steps, and found Mr. Bad Guy carrying out her TV. She watches him walk out, get in a car, and writes the plate number on the wall with lipstick (all she had). Detectives trace the car back to his girlfriend, who admits he had the car (then tried to back out, but another story). Find the TV in her apartment, with victim's name on the bottom.
Victim comes to court, ID's Bad Guy, all other evidence put on. Vote was 11-1 guilty. The one hold out engaged in jury nullification. She said that the criminal code was biased against minorities and women, as was the entire system. She would never vote to convict any african american man of any criminal offense. Plus, as a good Christian, she must not judge another, lest she be judged.
Set the case for new trial, as it was a hung jury. Bad Guy makes bond this time. Victim is murdered in her home. Bad Guy's bloody handprint and DNA found at the scene. He was convicted of the murder.
How's that for justice???
Back in my prosecuting days, I prosecuted a man for Aggravated Burglary, breaking into a home to steal while someone was present. In this case, the wife was home, working in the basement office. She heard the noise, came up the steps, and found Mr. Bad Guy carrying out her TV. She watches him walk out, get in a car, and writes the plate number on the wall with lipstick (all she had). Detectives trace the car back to his girlfriend, who admits he had the car (then tried to back out, but another story). Find the TV in her apartment, with victim's name on the bottom.
Victim comes to court, ID's Bad Guy, all other evidence put on. Vote was 11-1 guilty. The one hold out engaged in jury nullification. She said that the criminal code was biased against minorities and women, as was the entire system. She would never vote to convict any african american man of any criminal offense. Plus, as a good Christian, she must not judge another, lest she be judged.
Set the case for new trial, as it was a hung jury. Bad Guy makes bond this time. Victim is murdered in her home. Bad Guy's bloody handprint and DNA found at the scene. He was convicted of the murder.
How's that for justice???
..about the same as the Duke Lacross players got, courtesy of the prosecuter, or that Judge Ralph Erikssons
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 20, 2008, 12:08:55 PM
Boy, I hate it what work gets in the way of a good thread debating legal issues.
Back in my prosecuting days, I prosecuted a man for Aggravated Burglary, breaking into a home to steal while someone was present. In this case, the wife was home, working in the basement office. She heard the noise, came up the steps, and found Mr. Bad Guy carrying out her TV. She watches him walk out, get in a car, and writes the plate number on the wall with lipstick (all she had). Detectives trace the car back to his girlfriend, who admits he had the car (then tried to back out, but another story). Find the TV in her apartment, with victim's name on the bottom.
Victim comes to court, ID's Bad Guy, all other evidence put on. Vote was 11-1 guilty. The one hold out engaged in jury nullification. She said that the criminal code was biased against minorities and women, as was the entire system. She would never vote to convict any african american man of any criminal offense. Plus, as a good Christian, she must not judge another, lest she be judged.
Set the case for new trial, as it was a hung jury. Bad Guy makes bond this time. Victim is murdered in her home. Bad Guy's bloody handprint and DNA found at the scene. He was convicted of the murder.
How's that for justice???
Back in my prosecuting days, I prosecuted a man for Aggravated Burglary, breaking into a home to steal while someone was present. In this case, the wife was home, working in the basement office. She heard the noise, came up the steps, and found Mr. Bad Guy carrying out her TV. She watches him walk out, get in a car, and writes the plate number on the wall with lipstick (all she had). Detectives trace the car back to his girlfriend, who admits he had the car (then tried to back out, but another story). Find the TV in her apartment, with victim's name on the bottom.
Victim comes to court, ID's Bad Guy, all other evidence put on. Vote was 11-1 guilty. The one hold out engaged in jury nullification. She said that the criminal code was biased against minorities and women, as was the entire system. She would never vote to convict any african american man of any criminal offense. Plus, as a good Christian, she must not judge another, lest she be judged.
Set the case for new trial, as it was a hung jury. Bad Guy makes bond this time. Victim is murdered in her home. Bad Guy's bloody handprint and DNA found at the scene. He was convicted of the murder.
How's that for justice???
collectivist! if you were a real man you'd see how she was just a collateral casualty in the great struggle for freeedom being so thanklessly waged by the real men.
as a side note i wonder if the defendant knew he was a part of the revolution and was on board or if the cheeto eaters just drafted him. court can be funny i hope he had a public defender so his bill wasn't jacked up for being part of the fight for freedom. and that he got a good jury result sometimes pissing off the jury and judge doesn't help your case. course the heroes go home to mommas house for a hot meal while he goes to jail. but hey gotta break a few eggs
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 20, 2008, 12:13:35 PM
Post by: Hawkmoon on August 20, 2008, 12:17:03 PM
whats the point of a jury that doesn't look at the facts
The issue is not a jury failing to look at the facts. That is what a jury is supposed to look at. The issue is that judges do not inform jurors that their job is to look at the facts AND at the law. The standard instruction to juries, in fact, tells them that they may ONLY look at the facts, and that the judge shall determine the law. That's not what the Constitution and the law actually say.
The wayward juror in the reported case that opened this discussion messed up because, rather than using his own head to be a trier of the law as well as of the facts, he asked the judge to explain the law. As has been stated previously, he should have just shut up and voted according to his interpretation of the facts AND of the law.
As to the case Chris cited -- that was clearly a case of abuse of the power of jury nullification. In fact, that hold-out juror should have been eliminated during voir dire. Perhaps she lied, because I cannot imagine one of the attornies not asking a black woman (a) if she could vote to convict a young black male, and (b) if her religious beliefs would prevent her from rendering a decision. I've been voir dired twice when serving on jury duty, and the religious principles question came up both times. This was not really an instance of jury nullification at all. The juror didn't decide that the law was unjust, or unjustly applied. She simply decided that color was more important than right, wrong, or law. She didn't vote on the basis of nullifying a flawed law, she just voted to ignore the law.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 20, 2008, 12:28:10 PM
Boy, I hate it what work gets in the way of a good thread debating legal issues.
Back in my prosecuting days, I prosecuted a man for Aggravated Burglary, breaking into a home to steal while someone was present. In this case, the wife was home, working in the basement office. She heard the noise, came up the steps, and found Mr. Bad Guy carrying out her TV. She watches him walk out, get in a car, and writes the plate number on the wall with lipstick (all she had). Detectives trace the car back to his girlfriend, who admits he had the car (then tried to back out, but another story). Find the TV in her apartment, with victim's name on the bottom.
Victim comes to court, ID's Bad Guy, all other evidence put on. Vote was 11-1 guilty. The one hold out engaged in jury nullification. She said that the criminal code was biased against minorities and women, as was the entire system. She would never vote to convict any african american man of any criminal offense. Plus, as a good Christian, she must not judge another, lest she be judged.
Set the case for new trial, as it was a hung jury. Bad Guy makes bond this time. Victim is murdered in her home. Bad Guy's bloody handprint and DNA found at the scene. He was convicted of the murder.
How's that for justice???
Back in my prosecuting days, I prosecuted a man for Aggravated Burglary, breaking into a home to steal while someone was present. In this case, the wife was home, working in the basement office. She heard the noise, came up the steps, and found Mr. Bad Guy carrying out her TV. She watches him walk out, get in a car, and writes the plate number on the wall with lipstick (all she had). Detectives trace the car back to his girlfriend, who admits he had the car (then tried to back out, but another story). Find the TV in her apartment, with victim's name on the bottom.
Victim comes to court, ID's Bad Guy, all other evidence put on. Vote was 11-1 guilty. The one hold out engaged in jury nullification. She said that the criminal code was biased against minorities and women, as was the entire system. She would never vote to convict any african american man of any criminal offense. Plus, as a good Christian, she must not judge another, lest she be judged.
Set the case for new trial, as it was a hung jury. Bad Guy makes bond this time. Victim is murdered in her home. Bad Guy's bloody handprint and DNA found at the scene. He was convicted of the murder.
How's that for justice???
..about the same as the Duke Lacross players got, courtesy of the prosecuter, or that Judge Ralph Erikssons
you can do the kinda mental gymnastics required to equate that dead woman with the duke angels? wow! no wonder i quit the revolution in 74 my minds not big or free enough for those kinda moves.
was penns verdict challenged? the use of the term upheld implies that i missed that if it was
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 20, 2008, 12:29:27 PM
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Penn#Persecutions
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 20, 2008, 01:01:38 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 20, 2008, 01:15:17 PM
So you can have a system which has a slight statistical tendency towards imprisoning an extra innocent man or two (people will not really accept REALLY arbitrary proceding), or a slight statistical tendency towards letting go an extra murderer or two.
Sometimes a murderer gets free because he wasn't Mirandized.
Sometimes a child molester gets free because he was beaten while in custody.
Sometimes, a drug dealer gets free because he heard the cops coming and washed the drugs down the toilet.
You know, it's still worth it.
Same with jury nullification.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 20, 2008, 01:57:33 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 20, 2008, 01:58:50 PM
The same seemingly flawed 'loopholes' that the guilty can use to get off the hook are the same 'loopholes' an innocent man may one day be compelled to rely on in order to be set free.
The question the juror posed was valid.
Nearly 100 years ago, the government at least acknowledged the need for an amendment before it could have the authority to prohibit alcohol. It backfired, royally.
So now, they just ignore the Constitution altogether. The judge has the same mindset that far too many Americans have these days: 'Our government can never do wrong.'
A dangerous mindset, indeed.
FYI:
Blackstone's Ratio - 10:1 :: guilty:innocent
Benjamin Franklin, however - 100:1 :: guilty:innocent
The numbers vary, the principle is the same.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 20, 2008, 02:04:46 PM
funny again how perspective changes things. i still wanna spend more time tightening up the system than trying to find new and imaginative ways to let folks skate. i did once feel similarly to you i outgrew it. it happened real fast after i left home
I'm sorry that you feel the need to imply that my opinion is somehow less relevant because of where I live or how old I am.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 20, 2008, 02:27:30 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 20, 2008, 02:31:06 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 20, 2008, 02:34:13 PM
Post by: Tallpine on August 20, 2008, 02:36:46 PM
funny again how perspective changes things. i still wanna spend more time tightening up the system than trying to find new and imaginative ways to let folks skate. i did once feel similarly to you i outgrew it. it happened real fast after i left home
Funny, I "left home" about 35 years ago, and I find myself becoming more libertarian and anti-government as I age.
Sounds to me like you are trying to imply that anyone that doesn't see things your way is juvenile
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 20, 2008, 02:57:05 PM
I do not think the juror should have made these high and mighty statements, ubt I think he should have voted to acquit if he felt this was right.
perhaps what are your feelings about him possibly lying during the selection process? is that ok in the morality of the revolution? and how about the guy on trial? he get a vote or you just fold him into the freedom fight? don't forget hes the one that does time when all the other players go home to momma.or is he just a pawn for this?if i were him i'd want the best result some dweeb making noiuse in the jury room might not be my friend
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 20, 2008, 03:04:05 PM
funny again how perspective changes things. i still wanna spend more time tightening up the system than trying to find new and imaginative ways to let folks skate. i did once feel similarly to you i outgrew it. it happened real fast after i left home
Funny, I "left home" about 35 years ago, and I find myself becoming more libertarian and anti-government as I age.
Sounds to me like you are trying to imply that anyone that doesn't see things your way is juvenile
35 years ago?!! you ARE an old fart! i left 34 years ago and was way too serious and old for my age. i'm much more childlike in my outlook today than i was then. i like much about libertarian ideals its some of those who claim to be libertarian that put me off.. and i've never been confused about anyone "from the government here to help" that said the older i get the more i appreciate our system for all its flaws. i had the occaision to be falsly arrested and charges and then cleared and in my case while indeed the wheels of justice turn slow they also did turn fine. it was a bit awkward though i had absolutly no idea how to handle being innocent . never was innocent before. its very different.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 20, 2008, 03:05:52 PM
Quote
and how about the guy on trial? he get a vote or you just fold him into the freedom fight? don't forget hes the one that does time when all the other players go home to momma.or is he just a pawn for this?if i were him i'd want the best result some dweeb making noiuse in the jury room might not be my friend
The other 11 guys were going to vote against him anyhow, were'nt they?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 20, 2008, 06:38:23 PM
Boy, I hate it what work gets in the way of a good thread debating legal issues.
Back in my prosecuting days, I prosecuted a man for Aggravated Burglary, breaking into a home to steal while someone was present. In this case, the wife was home, working in the basement office. She heard the noise, came up the steps, and found Mr. Bad Guy carrying out her TV. She watches him walk out, get in a car, and writes the plate number on the wall with lipstick (all she had). Detectives trace the car back to his girlfriend, who admits he had the car (then tried to back out, but another story). Find the TV in her apartment, with victim's name on the bottom.
Victim comes to court, ID's Bad Guy, all other evidence put on. Vote was 11-1 guilty. The one hold out engaged in jury nullification. She said that the criminal code was biased against minorities and women, as was the entire system. She would never vote to convict any african american man of any criminal offense. Plus, as a good Christian, she must not judge another, lest she be judged.
Set the case for new trial, as it was a hung jury. Bad Guy makes bond this time. Victim is murdered in her home. Bad Guy's bloody handprint and DNA found at the scene. He was convicted of the murder.
How's that for justice???
Call me cynical, but I bet a scumbag like that was going to kill someone no matter how the jury ruled. If he can't refrain from killing someone while out on bail, then I see no reason to believe he would refrain from killing someone after spending a few years in the criminal training camps we call prisons.Back in my prosecuting days, I prosecuted a man for Aggravated Burglary, breaking into a home to steal while someone was present. In this case, the wife was home, working in the basement office. She heard the noise, came up the steps, and found Mr. Bad Guy carrying out her TV. She watches him walk out, get in a car, and writes the plate number on the wall with lipstick (all she had). Detectives trace the car back to his girlfriend, who admits he had the car (then tried to back out, but another story). Find the TV in her apartment, with victim's name on the bottom.
Victim comes to court, ID's Bad Guy, all other evidence put on. Vote was 11-1 guilty. The one hold out engaged in jury nullification. She said that the criminal code was biased against minorities and women, as was the entire system. She would never vote to convict any african american man of any criminal offense. Plus, as a good Christian, she must not judge another, lest she be judged.
Set the case for new trial, as it was a hung jury. Bad Guy makes bond this time. Victim is murdered in her home. Bad Guy's bloody handprint and DNA found at the scene. He was convicted of the murder.
How's that for justice???
The jury nullification may have influenced who and when he killed, but I doubt it changed the fact that eventually he was going to kill someone.
And the fact remains, it's better to have a system that occasionally lets guilty people go free than to have a system that occasionally robs innocent men of their freedom.
Post by: De Selby on August 20, 2008, 06:54:57 PM
Citing cases to the revolutionary period is certainly striking in that it was considered rebellious activity, not legal action against the British government. That was the whole idea of refusing to convict on British laws, refusing to enforce them, and ultimately fighting to eject the agents of Britain-revolution.
The Constitution was not designed so that we would have a revolution against the authority of the United States every time a case goes to trial. Against Britain, it was permitted rebellion (permitted on the grounds that you were acting in the interests of a Nation that deserved its own sovereignty). But from the foundation of the republic, rebellion against the United States has been a death penalty offense, so I fail to see how citing the activities or early anti-British juries is evidence of a legal foundation for jury nullification.
This is an internet legal phenomenon similar to the income tax deals-take this "nullification is law!" business to any Court in America, and see how many let you give the instruction. That is pretty good evidence right there that it isn't, in fact, the law.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 20, 2008, 06:58:00 PM
This is an internet legal phenomenon similar to the income tax deals-take this "nullification is law!" business to any Court in America, and see how many let you give the instruction. That is pretty good evidence right there that it isn't, in fact, the law.
Oh, well if the government says so, then it must be right. That's a recipe for the success in a free country!
(And perhaps you should reread your first paragraph in that post. You know, the part where you indicate that courts have been known to say and do the wrong thing...? That might kinda maybe have some relevance to your notion that jury nullification is wrong because courts today say it is.)
Post by: De Selby on August 20, 2008, 07:14:35 PM
This is an internet legal phenomenon similar to the income tax deals-take this "nullification is law!" business to any Court in America, and see how many let you give the instruction. That is pretty good evidence right there that it isn't, in fact, the law.
Oh, well if the government says so, then it must be right. That's a recipe for the success in a free country!
(And perhaps you should reread your first paragraph in that post. You know, the part where you indicate that courts have been known to say and do the wrong thing...? That might kinda maybe have some relevance to your notion that jury nullification is wrong because courts today say it is.)
You keep confusing "wrong" in a moral sense with "legal."
It is not the law, and was never intended to be. That is my point. It is entirely legal for a judge to toss a juror who refuses to deliberate because he doesn't like the law, just like it is legal for the United States to enforce validly enacted laws.
And I realize that the government makes mistakes-there's a mechanism for dealing with that, called the ballot box.
Just because you don't want to go through the hassle of convincing the rest of the Country that your personal beliefs should be the law, doesn't give you the right to break the laws everyone else agreed should be in effect.
Chris's example is a perfect illustration: Just because one person believes that criminal laws unfairly target minorities, that doesn't give her the right to refuse to enforce the laws that the rest of us have enacted to punish theft.
A country where no one obeys any laws except those that they find convenient is not free.
Indeed, on reflection, it's fairly easy to see what a disaster nullification can be in a country where large numbers of people are convinced that socialist type values are correct....can you imagine trying to enforce a contract or collect a debt when the jury always has one or two members who don't believe that "the working man" or the public in general should have to pay anything to greedy corporations?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 20, 2008, 07:37:41 PM
What the founders set up was a system where "right" could supersede "legal" whenever the two conflicted. This is a good thing!
Pragmatically, in real world court cases someone must be empowered to make the final decision on whether the letter of the law is right or not. Who better to make that decision than the people themselves?
Post by: De Selby on August 20, 2008, 07:42:40 PM
What the founders set up was a system where "right" could supersede "legal" whenever the two conflicted. This is a good thing!
Pragmatically, in real world court cases someone must be empowered to make the final decision on whether the letter of the law is right or not. Who better to make that decision than the people themselves?
I'm confused-you seem to be saying that the founding fathers set up the government so that individuals could just ignore the law if they didn't agree.
I don't think you'll find any support for the view that the laws of the United States only have so much force as one person allows them to have. It would be odd, considering that they immediately started enforcing the law, and threw people in jail specifically for violations of the law based on their personal beliefs.
What they did was set up basic guarantees of liberty, and then a mechanism to enact and enforce laws based on representation. They certainly were not of the view that following the Constitution and other laws of the United States was optional.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 20, 2008, 07:44:06 PM
There are laws that are wrong. On that we all agree, right?
When an innocent man is charged with breaking one of those laws, something must be done for him right now. Changing a bad law after people have already been punished is a miscarriage of justice. Besides, if you're in jail under a bad law, how are you going to go about changing that law?
Tell me, how many decades did it take to give black people real rights? How many black people were charged, jailed, or even executed under bad laws during those decades? Do you think it's fair to have imprisoned and executed people based on the bad laws on the books at the time?
"Oh, well, all those black people should have just worked to change the law, that's the only way to respond to a bad law." Umm, no, sorry. That isn't justice no matter how you slice it.
It's good to repeal bad laws. But repealing laws takes time. It also requires an accountable and responsive legislature, which has been conspicuously absent from time to time.
Please, don't pretend that changing bad laws is sufficient remedy for people who are already being charged with a bad law. It isn't. The people need a more immediate remedy. Fortunately the people were given such a remedy in the form of independent juries who judge both fact and law.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 20, 2008, 07:47:14 PM
What the founders set up was a system where "right" could supersede "legal" whenever the two conflicted. This is a good thing!
Pragmatically, in real world court cases someone must be empowered to make the final decision on whether the letter of the law is right or not. Who better to make that decision than the people themselves?
I'm confused-you seem to be saying that the founding fathers set up the government so that individuals could just ignore the law if they didn't agree.
Jury nullification doesn't allow individuals to break the law with impunity. What it does is allow jurors, not the defendant, to decide whether or not the law should be applied to the defendant.
You can't break a law and then nullify that law yourself. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you want to obey. If you've broken a law, all you can do is hope that another member of the community agrees that you were right to break the law. If other members of the community agree that you were right to break the law, then it's probably just that you shouldn't be convicted.
Post by: HankB on August 21, 2008, 03:37:37 AM
. . . I'm confused-you seem to be saying that the founding fathers set up the government so that individuals could just ignore the law if they didn't agree.
I don't think you'll find any support for the view that the laws of the United States only have so much force as one person allows them to have. . . .
I don't think you'll find any support for the view that the laws of the United States only have so much force as one person allows them to have. . . .
Quote from: John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
In case you're unaware of it, John Jay was the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, and author of Federalist Papers #2, #3, #4, #5 and #64. As an actual contemporary of the men who actually wrote the Constitution, I consider his legal opinions to be far more definitive than those of anyone alive today, as he had first-hand knowledge of original intent.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 21, 2008, 04:18:20 AM
This is an internet legal phenomenon similar to the income tax deals-take this "nullification is law!" business to any Court in America, and see how many let you give the instruction. That is pretty good evidence right there that it isn't, in fact, the law.
Oh, well if the government says so, then it must be right. That's a recipe for the success in a free country!
(And perhaps you should reread your first paragraph in that post. You know, the part where you indicate that courts have been known to say and do the wrong thing...? That might kinda maybe have some relevance to your notion that jury nullification is wrong because courts today say it is.)
You keep confusing "wrong" in a moral sense with "legal."
It is not the law, and was never intended to be. That is my point. It is entirely legal for a judge to toss a juror who refuses to deliberate because he doesn't like the law, just like it is legal for the United States to enforce validly enacted laws.
And I realize that the government makes mistakes-there's a mechanism for dealing with that, called the ballot box.
There are laws in this country that trump the laws of its legislature. These laws are found in the articles and amendments of [the] Constitution.
It seems as though you would have us change something that isn't broken. Congress doesn't have a blank check to make any law it sees fit (and if we don't abide by them, well too bad, go to jail, do not pass go). Congress only has the power to make laws which the people have granted it the authority to make. Telling the people to wait and vote for someone who will actually follow the Constitution does not make it right that the Constitution is being ignored now. The power of jury nullification is instant. It puts the brakes on the government when it has stepped out of bounds. On the contrary, it is YOU who should use the 'mechanism of the ballot box' and vote in someone who will amend the Constitution before attempting to enforce the (currently unconstitutional) laws on drugs (if you so desire to give the government that power - - - but, also keep in mind that you'd have to convince roughly two-thirds of the people to also vote for representatives who will amend the Constitution. That is why amending the Constitution is so difficult, as it is supposed to be.)
All it would take to be able to make these laws on illegal substances 'valid' is to amend the Constitution in the same fashion we did with alcohol prohibition. I present:
Quote from: the 18th Amendment
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. [My comment: This is the part that you would like to see, I understand. Consequently, this is the right way to do things. The legal and moral way.]
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
From here, I'll leave the responsibility of learning your history to yourself.
Post by: richyoung on August 21, 2008, 12:21:43 PM
Opinion 320
Jury Nullification Arguments by Criminal Defense Counsel
(The August 2003 Washington Lawyer Speaking of Ethics column addressed the issue of jury nullification and its advocacy by criminal defense attorneys. Opinion 320 was the focus of the column and this opinion makes recourse to diverse jurisprudence and legal history, in addition to Rules 1.3 (Diligence and zeal),3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions),3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), and 8.4 (Misconduct). )
...Good-faith arguments with incidental nullification effects do not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. Despite its disfavor, the law permits a jury to acquit in disregard of the evidence, and . . . such an acquittal is unreviewable. Watts, 362 A.2d at 710. That power is a necessary consequence inherent in the right to trial by jury. So long as the power to acquit in disregard of the evidence exists, we do not believe that the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit zealous advocacy by a criminal defense lawyer that appeals indirectly to that power. &
Post by: richyoung on August 21, 2008, 12:29:37 PM
'41. Do not Instruct Juries on Jury Nullification; However, the Rules of Evidence Ought to be Expanded in Recognition of the Jury's Power to Nullify
Except in extraordinary situations or where required by the Arizona Constitution, juries should not be instructed on the subject of jury nullification. However, relevancy rules should be amended or interpreted to permit greater latitude in evidence in recognition of the jury's undoubted power to nullify the law. For example, evidence of the defendant's intent and motive ought to be received.'
Post by: De Selby on August 21, 2008, 04:51:23 PM
. . . I'm confused-you seem to be saying that the founding fathers set up the government so that individuals could just ignore the law if they didn't agree.
I don't think you'll find any support for the view that the laws of the United States only have so much force as one person allows them to have. . . .
I don't think you'll find any support for the view that the laws of the United States only have so much force as one person allows them to have. . . .
Quote from: John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
In case you're unaware of it, John Jay was the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, and author of Federalist Papers #2, #3, #4, #5 and #64. As an actual contemporary of the men who actually wrote the Constitution, I consider his legal opinions to be far more definitive than those of anyone alive today, as he had first-hand knowledge of original intent.Yeah, this is typical of the "jury nullification!" types: you just cited a case where John Jay was saying that juries have the power to interpret the law and decide what it actually requires, not whether the law itself should be on the books.
That is not jury nullification-that's leaving specific interpretation of the language up to the jury.
Nullification is when the jury says "we realize that this is the law, but we don't think it should be the law, so we aren't going to enforce it."
"Judge the law" in early constitutional and modern jurisprudence means simply that the Jury gets to read the statute for itself and decide what the legal requirements actually are, not what they should be.
Post by: De Selby on August 21, 2008, 04:55:35 PM
From the Arizona Supreme Court web page...
'41. Do not Instruct Juries on Jury Nullification; However, the Rules of Evidence Ought to be Expanded in Recognition of the Jury's Power to Nullify
Except in extraordinary situations or where required by the Arizona Constitution, juries should not be instructed on the subject of jury nullification. However, relevancy rules should be amended or interpreted to permit greater latitude in evidence in recognition of the jury's undoubted power to nullify the law. For example, evidence of the defendant's intent and motive ought to be received.'
'41. Do not Instruct Juries on Jury Nullification; However, the Rules of Evidence Ought to be Expanded in Recognition of the Jury's Power to Nullify
Except in extraordinary situations or where required by the Arizona Constitution, juries should not be instructed on the subject of jury nullification. However, relevancy rules should be amended or interpreted to permit greater latitude in evidence in recognition of the jury's undoubted power to nullify the law. For example, evidence of the defendant's intent and motive ought to be received.'
Yeah, Rich, ya gotta read the whole thing:
Quote
The committee agrees with the traditional view that while juries in criminal cases have the unreviewable power to acquit despite the law, there is no "right" to jury nullification on the part of the jury or either party and that the jury ought not be instructed on the subject. At the same time, however, the committee also feels that evidence rules ought to be expanded somewhat in recognition of the jury's power to nullify.
http://www.supreme.state.az.us/jury/Jury/jury1k3.htmAlso, you might be interested in reading the legal authorities cited on this page, and what they have to say:
Quote
18See e.g., Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895); United States v. Powell, 936 F.2d 1056 (9th Cir. 1991).
Note the acknowledgment as to the consensus position here:
Quote
Most authorities state that this is a power of the jury outside the law about which they should not be told in the instructions
Like I said, this is basically the same as the "income tax doesn't exist!" argument-you cherry pick legal authorities for sentences that, to someone who's read the material, plainly do not mean what they are purported to mean on the various websites that mean them.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 21, 2008, 06:55:03 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 21, 2008, 07:09:52 PM
Post by: De Selby on August 21, 2008, 08:00:25 PM
I wonder if you actually read the whole thing, shootinstudent. They clearly recognize that juries can nullify. They simply conclude that juries shouldn't be told of this ability.
It's a bit more nuanced than that-a jury can do anything it wants. Juries don't have to explain themselves to anyone or justify their actions.
However, if one juror is refusing to participate or annoying the others with political preaching, the other jurors often complain that they can't do their jobs, and he'll be kicked if his actions are without legal basis.
Which is what happened in this case.
Unless the other jurors complain, the judge won't even know that there's an argument.
Post by: Hawkmoon on August 21, 2008, 08:00:50 PM
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.
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.
You weren't paying attention in class. Since I already knew that John Jay (the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, that John Jay) said it, it took me all of about 15 seconds to find this through Google:
Quote
At the time of the American Revolution, the jury was known to have the power to be the judge of both law and fact. In a case involving the civil forfeiture of private property by the state of Georgia, first Supreme Court Justice John Jay, instructed jurors that the jury has "a right to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." (Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794:4)
Post by: Regolith on August 21, 2008, 10:37:55 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 22, 2008, 02:03:40 AM
nor should they soapbox from the jury box
How is questioning the legitimacy of a law when a man is about to go to prison for it "soapboxing?" I think HTG already explained that things couldn't be put on hold for the fellow on trial.
So what happens if you go to jail for breaking some firearms law? You are typically a reasonable, law abiding citizen. (For example, in Georgia, you can be arrested for carrying into "public gatherings." The discretion of what constitututes a "public gathering" is completely subjective. So, you'd better believe that if I ever get to serve on a jury for a guy arrested for carrying his sidearm to his son's little league game, I'm gonna be one of those "Jury nullification!" types.) Wouldn't you want someone to question the validity of the laws you're about to be put away for?
I know I'm starting to speak in hypotheticals, but I figured I needed an example that gun owners might relate to.
There was no "political preaching" in this case. Unless someone can point me to the part of the Constitution where the government has the right to fight a war on drugs (especially since we needed an amendment to fight the 'war on alcohol'), I'd say the juror asked a damned good question.
Edited: proofreading is more effective following the second cup of coffee
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 22, 2008, 02:23:43 AM
I wonder if you actually read the whole thing, shootinstudent. They clearly recognize that juries can nullify. They simply conclude that juries shouldn't be told of this ability.
It's a bit more nuanced than that-a jury can do anything it wants. Juries don't have to explain themselves to anyone or justify their actions.
However, if one juror is refusing to participate or annoying the others with political preaching, the other jurors often complain that they can't do their jobs, and he'll be kicked if his actions are without legal basis.
Which is what happened in this case.
Unless the other jurors complain, the judge won't even know that there's an argument.
The juror's actions were with legal basis. The juror did do what he wanted. The other jurors didn't do their jobs, because they didn't know they have the power to question the laws as well. The fact that they were "annoyed" doesn't give the judge the authority to strip the justice system of one of its tools.
What happened in this case?
There was one man on the jury who actually had a layman's knowledge of how the Constitution works, and because of that, he was kicked off the jury and replaced with just another dumbass who would vote "guilty." It appears the judge got the team he wanted, at the expense of a fair trial.
Do we get to "kick" the government when its actions are without legal basis? I get the sense from some people here that there is a particular time for protest, and every other time is inappropriate. The planets have to be in a certain alignment, or the weather must be just right, it must not occur on the Sabbath, etc. To paraphrase HTG, jury nullification is a way to do something for the accused now. Going to the ballot box 4 years later is not going to help a guy facing time now.
Post by: HankB on August 22, 2008, 03:41:29 AM
. . . I'm confused-you seem to be saying that the founding fathers set up the government so that individuals could just ignore the law if they didn't agree.
I don't think you'll find any support for the view that the laws of the United States only have so much force as one person allows them to have. . . .
I don't think you'll find any support for the view that the laws of the United States only have so much force as one person allows them to have. . . .
Quote from: John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
In case you're unaware of it, John Jay was the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, and author of Federalist Papers #2, #3, #4, #5 and #64. As an actual contemporary of the men who actually wrote the Constitution, I consider his legal opinions to be far more definitive than those of anyone alive today, as he had first-hand knowledge of original intent.Yeah, this is typical of the "jury nullification!" types: you just cited a case where John Jay was saying that juries have the power to interpret the law and decide what it actually requires, not whether the law itself should be on the books.
That is not jury nullification-that's leaving specific interpretation of the language up to the jury.
Nullification is when the jury says "we realize that this is the law, but we don't think it should be the law, so we aren't going to enforce it."
"Judge the law" in early constitutional and modern jurisprudence means simply that the Jury gets to read the statute for itself and decide what the legal requirements actually are, not what they should be.
In the Zenger case, the jury found the law itself to be unjust, and refused to convict. So it wasn't just an interpretation of the law, it was outright rejection of the law.
As for the subject quote . . . I'll go with what John Jay actually said, not what you wish he said.
Post by: richyoung on August 22, 2008, 09:19:08 AM
. . . I'm confused-you seem to be saying that the founding fathers set up the government so that individuals could just ignore the law if they didn't agree.
I don't think you'll find any support for the view that the laws of the United States only have so much force as one person allows them to have. . . .
I don't think you'll find any support for the view that the laws of the United States only have so much force as one person allows them to have. . . .
Quote from: John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
In case you're unaware of it, John Jay was the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, and author of Federalist Papers #2, #3, #4, #5 and #64. As an actual contemporary of the men who actually wrote the Constitution, I consider his legal opinions to be far more definitive than those of anyone alive today, as he had first-hand knowledge of original intent.Yeah, this is typical of the "jury nullification!" types: you just cited a case where John Jay was saying that juries have the power to interpret the law and decide what it actually requires, not whether the law itself should be on the books.
That is not jury nullification-that's leaving specific interpretation of the language up to the jury.
Nullification is when the jury says "we realize that this is the law, but we don't think it should be the law, so we aren't going to enforce it."
"Judge the law" in early constitutional and modern jurisprudence means simply that the Jury gets to read the statute for itself and decide what the legal requirements actually are, not what they should be.
Not familiar with the Penn and Zenger trials, I see...
Post by: richyoung on August 22, 2008, 09:21:12 AM
From the Arizona Supreme Court web page...
'41. Do not Instruct Juries on Jury Nullification; However, the Rules of Evidence Ought to be Expanded in Recognition of the Jury's Power to Nullify
Except in extraordinary situations or where required by the Arizona Constitution, juries should not be instructed on the subject of jury nullification. However, relevancy rules should be amended or interpreted to permit greater latitude in evidence in recognition of the jury's undoubted power to nullify the law. For example, evidence of the defendant's intent and motive ought to be received.'
'41. Do not Instruct Juries on Jury Nullification; However, the Rules of Evidence Ought to be Expanded in Recognition of the Jury's Power to Nullify
Except in extraordinary situations or where required by the Arizona Constitution, juries should not be instructed on the subject of jury nullification. However, relevancy rules should be amended or interpreted to permit greater latitude in evidence in recognition of the jury's undoubted power to nullify the law. For example, evidence of the defendant's intent and motive ought to be received.'
Yeah, Rich, ya gotta read the whole thing:
Quote
The committee agrees with the traditional view that while juries in criminal cases have the unreviewable power to acquit despite the law, there is no "right" to jury nullification on the part of the jury or either party and that the jury ought not be instructed on the subject. At the same time, however, the committee also feels that evidence rules ought to be expanded somewhat in recognition of the jury's power to nullify.
http://www.supreme.state.az.us/jury/Jury/jury1k3.htmAlso, you might be interested in reading the legal authorities cited on this page, and what they have to say:
Quote
18See e.g., Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895); United States v. Powell, 936 F.2d 1056 (9th Cir. 1991).
Note the acknowledgment as to the consensus position here:
Quote
Most authorities state that this is a power of the jury outside the law about which they should not be told in the instructions
Like I said, this is basically the same as the "income tax doesn't exist!" argument-you cherry pick legal authorities for sentences that, to someone who's read the material, plainly do not mean what they are purported to mean on the various websites that mean them.
The jury has the power to nullify, but not the right. Only a lawyer could explain such twisted logic.
Post by: richyoung on August 22, 2008, 09:28:57 AM
Yeah, this is typical of the "jury nullification!" types: you just cited a case where John Jay was saying that juries have the power to interpret the law and decide what it actually requires, not whether the law itself should be on the books.
That is not jury nullification-that's leaving specific interpretation of the language up to the jury.
Nullification is when the jury says "we realize that this is the law, but we don't think it should be the law, so we aren't going to enforce it."
"Judge the law" in early constitutional and modern jurisprudence means simply that the Jury gets to read the statute for itself and decide what the legal requirements actually are, not what they should be.
That is not jury nullification-that's leaving specific interpretation of the language up to the jury.
Nullification is when the jury says "we realize that this is the law, but we don't think it should be the law, so we aren't going to enforce it."
"Judge the law" in early constitutional and modern jurisprudence means simply that the Jury gets to read the statute for itself and decide what the legal requirements actually are, not what they should be.
Even under YOUR interpretation, that's what the juror did. Any law in conflict with the Constituion - isn't a law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Since Prohibition required an ammendmant, why doesn't hte War on Some Drugs? If it does, then the "laws" are null and viod. Kinda like almost gun laws. And you know what? If the Supreme's had ruled against us in Heller, the gun laws would STILL be unconstitutional. That's the beauty of the system the Founders set up - the people are the FINAL arbiters of how the governmental contract shall be executed - whether thats in a voting booth, or a jury box, or behind the sights of a weapon.
Post by: roo_ster on August 22, 2008, 11:10:19 AM
That's the beauty of the system the Founders set up - the people are the FINAL arbiters of how the governmental contract shall be executed - whether thats in a voting booth, or a jury box, or behind the sights of a weapon.
True, but hte technocrats wish it were otherwise and that lawyers had the final say.
Post by: Werewolf on August 22, 2008, 11:41:51 AM
I never knew just how many statists we have here. After reading and re-reading this thread twice I'm still shocked. The numbers of folks here who believe that the people exist to serve the almighty state and it's infallible laws is - well - simply amazing.
For some reason I've always believed that the overwhelming majority here were of a mind that the state existed to serve the people. Guess not.
Quite enlightening - explains a lot...
ASIDE: Go ahead C&S Daddy and make sure to roll out your ubiquitous, inane references to Heroes of the Revolution - it'll just help make my point for me.
Post by: LAK on August 22, 2008, 04:11:38 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 22, 2008, 04:51:15 PM
Quote
Go ahead C&S Daddy and make sure to roll out your ubiquitous, inane references to Heroes of the Revolution - it'll just help make my point for me.
And Ron Paul. He always brings up Ron Paul.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 22, 2008, 05:05:31 PM
Judge William Young's memorandum (PDF reader required. I'd post it for those who may not have a .pdf reader, but it is about 40 pages long): http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=young/pdf/luisi%20memorandum.pdf
Juror No. 2's rebuttal of the judge's memorandum with an alternate recollection of the proceedings:
http://dangeroustalkblog.blogspot.com/
The proceedings according to Thomas R. Eddlem, and defense of his actions during deliberation (the 'problem juror,' or 'juror no. 2.'): http://www.lewrockwell.com/eddlem/eddlem20.html
Opinionated: Thomas R. Eddlem's follow-up essay on the condition of the the justice system in the United States (this is, I suppose, the "soapbox" so many here have claimed he stood on in court, but he didn't publish this until after the event): http://www.lewrockwell.com/eddlem/eddlem24.html
My disclaimer: Yes, I acknowledge that some of these links go to what some here may consider 'revolution wookie' sites. I also understand that CNN, Fox, and MSNBC are very unlikely to pick up on this story, as it does nothing for ratings (it falls a bit short of the glory of Hollywood garbage). This does not invalidate the credibility of the authors nor their documents. The essays/memorandum are, for the most part, well written in that they contain both accounts of the proceedings (though, at forty-something pages, Judge Young's version is somewhat longer). Click on them and read them, or don't. It won't hurt my feelings. But if you do read them, make sure you don't have anything breakable near your person. Not far into my reading of Young's memorandum, I wanted to throw my keyboard across the room (admittedly, I could not read all of it in one sitting, and maybe I will finish it when my blood pressure has returned to normal levels). [Pure-blooded Americans beware.]
Interestingly enough, Eddlem (Juror No. 2) defends against accusations that he even attempted to engage in "jury nullification." Yet, I am compelled to believe he would have been right even if he had done so.
My secondary disclaimer: Despite my best attempts, I was unable to find an official transcript of "United States vs. Robert Luisi." There could be any number of reasons for this. The transcript may still not have been uploaded/leaked to the internet. It is also possible that, because of all the 'problems', an entirely new proceeding (and therefore a new transcript) may have been required. But, I don't know how that works.
I do plan to read finish reading Young's memorandum (at least for informative purposes), but given the parts that I have read, and taking into consideration its length, there is now little doubt in my mind that someone in the courtroom may have been standing on a soapbox.
Consider this post my concession to a draw.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 22, 2008, 05:07:27 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 22, 2008, 05:19:47 PM
understatement
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 22, 2008, 05:25:15 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 22, 2008, 05:30:22 PM
you wanna real giggle? i've actually voted libertarian in a presidential election. course vthat was when they were sane enough to get on a real ballot. before you were born. and before they were coopted by the nutters
Post by: DJJ on August 23, 2008, 01:59:37 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 23, 2008, 02:52:15 PM
how about you djj? have bad luck " bucking the man?" tough showing the shining path to the statists?
Post by: Telperion on August 23, 2008, 03:37:35 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 23, 2008, 03:46:36 PM
Post by: DJJ on August 23, 2008, 05:18:03 PM
how about you djj? have bad luck " bucking the man?" tough showing the shining path to the statists?
Got one speeding ticket on the record right now. Other than that, the only time I've been fingerprinted was for my CCW. As far as showing the shining path, I consider it my civic duty.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 23, 2008, 05:39:48 PM
Post by: Tallpine on August 24, 2008, 11:29:14 AM
Quote
cost me a dcouple years but its a most remarkable country we live in. once i paid my debt i've found the world to be quite willing to let me do whatever i want.
Including owning a gun
Or are you just here for the great companionship?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 24, 2008, 11:36:02 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 24, 2008, 06:55:31 PM
Post by: De Selby on August 24, 2008, 07:03:07 PM
To be honest, I don't think anyobdy in the LP is particularly insane.
There is a guy who drank silver nitrate and turned himself blue-I don't know what his policy stances were, but most Americans will assume you're insane if you look like an X-Men character.
One major problem I have with nullification and judiciary-based freedom protection in general is that it breeds laziness-we shouldn't be relying on the lone juror to undo oppressive drug laws, or the group of judges to undo invasions of privacy and property.
Organization and effective political activity of every sort, aimed at elected representatives, beats any other remedy hands down.
Post by: richyoung on August 25, 2008, 04:29:31 AM
To be honest, I don't think anyobdy in the LP is particularly insane.
There is a guy who drank silver nitrate and turned himself blue-I don't know what his policy stances were, but most Americans will assume you're insane if you look like an X-Men character.
One major problem I have with nullification and judiciary-based freedom protection in general is that it breeds laziness-we shouldn't be relying on the lone juror to undo oppressive drug laws, or the group of judges to undo invasions of privacy and property.
Organization and effective political activity of every sort, aimed at elected representatives, beats any other remedy hands down.
We shouldn't be relying on the mechanical safety features of a firearm... but we still engage them, when appropriate.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 25, 2008, 04:39:05 AM
To be honest, I don't think anyobdy in the LP is particularly insane.
no one? not even one?! lol quite remarkable
Post by: Tallpine on August 25, 2008, 05:03:04 AM
Post by: roo_ster on August 25, 2008, 05:55:26 AM
To be honest, I don't think anyobdy in the LP is particularly insane.
There is a guy who drank silver nitrate and turned himself blue-I don't know what his policy stances were, but most Americans will assume you're insane if you look like an X-Men character.
Yep, that ranks up there with the wookie costume, though I would pay a $1 to see blue-boy in the flesh.
Post by: Werewolf on August 25, 2008, 09:28:16 AM
...Organization and effective political activity of every sort, aimed at elected representatives, beats any other remedy hands down.
In the long run, true. In the short run however it does nothing to help nor protect the individual subjected to unfair and unjust law.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 25, 2008, 09:32:55 AM
Post by: richyoung on August 25, 2008, 12:28:02 PM
do you feel this case was unjust?
If there is no ammendmant granting the federal level of government the same power over drugs that the Volmstead ammendmant gave it over alcohol, then the answer is - YES. The government is not allowed or entitled to empower itself, Lincoln's, Roosevelt's, and anyone elses's opinion otherwise be damned.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 25, 2008, 12:30:11 PM
Post by: richyoung on August 25, 2008, 12:44:04 PM
dxo you feel the man on trial wasn't aware of the law the penalties and didn't make a choice to go for big bucks even with full knowledge of those consequences?
A law in contravention to the limits of Federal power in the constituion - ISN'T. Just as ignorance of the law is not an excuse, it neither makes one guilty. Either the fed has the authority - or it does not. The defendant's knowledge or lack thereof is not at issue.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 25, 2008, 12:49:09 PM
Post by: richyoung on August 25, 2008, 01:02:18 PM
was that a yes or no?
Its a "not germaine to the discussion" - so why are you bringing it up?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 25, 2008, 01:24:23 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 25, 2008, 01:54:12 PM
interesting view and self description
good thing john birch has paid staff positions for folks
and i'll not cry a river for a mafia coke dealer twice convicted
Post by: richyoung on August 26, 2008, 04:51:35 AM
its ok in your shoes i would be afraid to answer a simple yes or no too
Yes, I'm sure you would...
Post by: richyoung on August 26, 2008, 04:56:02 AM
Last week Eddlem said he would have voted to convict Luisi in a state court; he simply felt there were no grounds for a federal prosecution. He opposes nullification, he added in an e-mail, but judges who ignore the Constitution pose a far greater threat than a "handful of 'nullification' radicals."
interesting view and self description
good thing john birch has paid staff positions for folks
and i'll not cry a river for a mafia coke dealer twice convicted
interesting view and self description
good thing john birch has paid staff positions for folks
and i'll not cry a river for a mafia coke dealer twice convicted
..and here is where you fail. Justice isn't "Justice" unless EVERYONE gets it. Even a "twice convicted mafia coke dealer". The reason WHY, is that the minute you let government take shortcuts on the way to punishment, you may eventually find the government taking shortcuts to ALL punishment. Leberty, justice, freedom - none of those are free. They all come at a variety of costs. One of those costs is eternal vigalence - the contstant observation of tha actions o fthe governemnt, and when it over-steps its bounds, doing something about it. The minute we allow shortcuts, even for the least of us - the pedophiles, dopers, rapists - is the minute that leads to the end of justice for all.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 26, 2008, 05:46:38 AM
Typically, one juror would result in a hung jury at best. But think of the expenses involved in a hung jury. Not only to the state but also to the defense.
I believe that jury nullification should simply exist openly, with standards put in place that the jury must follow. Perhaps a majority vote on the laws at issue before addressing the issue of guilt or innocence...
Post by: richyoung on August 26, 2008, 07:52:37 AM
Post by: roo_ster on August 26, 2008, 10:08:25 AM
All others who wield power in the system have quite a bit of discretion: beat cop, prosecutor, judge. Why ought the juror be shackled when the others have discretion and make decisions every bit as momentous to the defendant?
JN is there as a power to counter the power of cop, prosecutor, and judge. Yet another check and balance in the system. I expect to see that power used inappropriately at times, just as all other power wielded by agents of the state is used inappropriately at times.
Post by: K Frame on August 26, 2008, 10:16:03 AM
Say what?
He still sits on the bench as an LA Superior Court Judge.
Post by: richyoung on August 27, 2008, 06:55:06 AM
Judge Ito?
Say what?
He still sits on the bench as an LA Superior Court Judge.
Say what?
He still sits on the bench as an LA Superior Court Judge.
Should have been removed from office for allowing the OJ trial to become a circus AND allowing the defense to essentially put the LA police department on trial.