Unacceptable: Judge nullifies juror nullification

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[MicroBalrog]

The fact that I am 'not here' does not make my opinion anyhow less valid.

[LAK]

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.

[GigaBuist]

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?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[SteveS]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

What's the point of the jury in cases where the judge orders how the jury is to rule?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

whats the point of a jury that doesn't look at the facts

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

sopme of you most assuredly are  the facts were that the man commite an illegal act  one he knew was illegal when he did it(i might understand if it was something he didn't know was illegal) and some sopmoroc doofus wants to use the jury box for a soap box. heck if i was the judge i mighta jailed him for contempt for duration of trial if he pressed his luck  see if he was a true commited hero of the revolution.
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

[MicroBalrog]

You know what?

I'm perfectly okay with the notion that some murderers might get free.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[De Selby]

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.

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[De Selby]

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. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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.
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"

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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. 

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."

[GigaBuist]

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

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

[De Selby]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Do a little googling, folks.  There's a long history of juries acquitting defendants who clearly violated the law they were charged with.  It goes back as far as William Penn. 

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

I never said the Indiana constitution was Harlan's business.  I think you're quite confused on the subject of jury nullification.

[De Selby]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

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

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