Unacceptable: Judge nullifies juror nullification

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Jury nullification is the reason we have a jury in the first place.  It's to ensure that the power of prosecution is at least somewhat under the control of the people and not wholly in the hands of the government.  It's supposed to give the people a sort of veto power over the prosecution, in instances where they feel the law itself is wrong and should not be applied.

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?

[roo_ster]

Lawyerly types don't like letting go of power, it is that simple.

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.

[BridgeRunner]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.  They should stay out of matters that are above the, and they should keep their opinions to themselves.

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.

[BridgeRunner]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Juries were explicitly made part of the process, just as much as politicians and judges.  To ignore one part of the process (juries) and only consider the others (politicians and judges) doesn't make for a sound or constitutional legal system.  Checks and balances are there for a reason.  Attempting to undermine those checks will lead to no good.

Judges don't get to replace jurors that vote "not guilty" over and over again until they find 12 who will all vote "guilty."

[roo_ster]

IOW, jury nullification is a "feature" of our gov't & COTUS, not a "bug."

Also, all those things mentioned:

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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?

[RevDisk]

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.

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. 

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.

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.

[BridgeRunner]

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.

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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.


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

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[BridgeRunner]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[BridgeRunner]

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.

[alan2]

    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?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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. 

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?

[HankB]

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.

[RevDisk]

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."

 

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."

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[seeker_two]

Good news is that this opens up an avenue of appeal for the defense....hope this particular juror contacts the defense attorney gets concurrent representation....

[LAK]

This is not a matter of "personal feelings" as much as the principles involved in the judicial process.

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

or some woman might decide to let a murderer go free cause "i don't wanna send another young black man to jail" and he kills 5 more. oops  that was a real case  i hate to mix reallity with imagination. jury nullification or actions like the wanna be clarence darrow in this case sound better at a ron paul convention in the real world it becomes a nightmare

[ilbob]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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.