Unacceptable: Judge nullifies juror nullification

[richyoung]

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.

Not familiar with juries in the 1850s refusing to apply the Fugitive Slave Act, I see...

[MicroBalrog]

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.

Not familiar with juries in the 1850s refusing to apply the Fugitive Slave Act, I see...

Or the Zenger case.

[The Annoyed Man]

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???

[richyoung]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jury Nullification * IS * Common Law - has been ever since William Penn's aquital was upheld.

[richyoung]

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???

..about the same as the Duke Lacross players got, courtesy of the prosecuter, or that Judge Ralph Erikssons victims defendants got.  Am I correct in understanding that YOUR position is that because discretion MIGHT be abused, it must be removed from jurors,... but NOT prosecutors and judges?  Sounds a lot like "your mor elikely to shoot a family member or aquaintance" anti-gun B.S. to me...

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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???

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

[MicroBalrog]

So in your world voting to acquit puts innocents in prison?

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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???

..about the same as the Duke Lacross players got, courtesy of the prosecuter, or that Judge Ralph Erikssons victims defendants got.  Am I correct in understanding that YOUR position is that because discretion MIGHT be abused, it must be removed from jurors,... but NOT prosecutors and judges?  Sounds a lot like "your mor elikely to shoot a family member or aquaintance" anti-gun B.S. to me...

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

[MicroBalrog]

Have you never heard of the the phrase "better to free 20 guilty men than to imprison one innocent"?

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Penn#Persecutions

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

when i first heard that expression. it was ten men./  and i still support it. i just don't think we need to try to let 10 guilty go free. better to tighten up procedure

[MicroBalrog]

Essentially, justice is impossible. Men are limited. Systems are even more so.

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[The Annoyed Man]

If we had to surrender more of our rights every time some thug found a way to beat the system, we'd be left with absolutely nothing. Clever minds can beat any system.

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i admire your opinion and its fervor. my dad says it reminds him of me. sorry bout that but dad thinks it serves me right. it cause me some pain and angst to realize i have become my father

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

absolutly a great  question  jus wrong time and venue. for the record i've been pro legalization of everything since before most of you were born. in spite of being a teetotaler for 16 years that view hasn't changed. folks like the juror do NOT  advance "le cause" though it might get some folks all atwitter

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[Tallpine]

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  

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

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.

[De Selby]

There have also been cases that declared black people non-citizens by birth.  Citing a case or two does not prove that jury nullification is the law.  One or two cases do not make "the common law."

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.)