|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Open Carry Brigade > General Discussion > Do you believe in the right of Jury Nullification?
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Open Carry Brigade > General Discussion > Do you believe in the right of Jury Nullification?
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
hsmith Regular Member 
|
Sparked by a thread on ARFCOM (yeah, how logical). Some debated they don't believe juries have the right, but IMO you must argue they do! If you believe in the "better judged by 12 than carried by 6 mantra" - how could you argue against the right to nullify laws from the jury box? A lot of states are backwards in their rights to defend yourself, the right to own firearms, ect. If you were on a jury in NYC and someone was on trial for using an "illegal gun" to protect themselves, could you convict even though the law is unjust and goes against the natural rights of the individual? For those who don't know what Jury Nullification is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification |
|||||||||
|
PT111 Regular Member 
|
I consider the right to trial by jury on the same level as the right to vote. Both are the basis of system of government. The right to write in a cantidate is the equivalent to jury nullification. Without the possibility of jury nullification, and in my opinion juries should be allowed more leeway in their verdicts, our system of government no longer is of and by the people. It is our last holdout against tyrany Those who argue against jury nullification would also argue for a dictatorship. |
|||||||||
|
AWDstylez Banned 
|
The jury has the final say. Cases are taken on a case-by-case (no pun intended) basis. The jury should have the right to make whatever decision they see fit. If all that mattered was strict interpretation of the law with no consideration of circumstances we wouldn't have a jury of peers, we'd have a group of professional lawyers. |
|||||||||
|
SouthernBoy Regular Member 
|
There are bad laws and there are bad judges and sometimes, there are bad juries. But jury nulification is considered the final and absolute check on the first two items in the prior list. Having sat on three juries, two criminal, they take their responsibility seriously. |
|||||||||
|
Prometheus Regular Member 
|
YES! |
|||||||||
|
PT111 Regular Member
|
SouthernBoy wrote: There are bad laws and there are bad judges and sometimes, there are bad juries. But jury nulification is considered the final and absolute check on the first two items in the prior list. Having sat on three juries, two criminal, they take their responsibility seriously. I have been on, I think, 10 or 12 juries and agree completely that juries take their responsibility seriously. Make all the joke you want about people too dumb to get out of jury duty but I have have more faith in juries than any other part of our judicial system. Some people on juries really surprised me on their insight into what was going on. |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
I support jury nullification. Do a little research and you will find how far the state and federal governments have encroached all rights. Jury nullification is one--an important one. So are the negative changes that have happened to grand juries. If you were take the time you were going to spend on this site in the coming week and devote it instead to researching the history and decline of 4th and 5th Amendment rights, it would be time well spent. If you are angry about infringements on 2A, just do the research I recommend. Infringements on 2A are just the tip of the iceberg. Last edited on Sat Aug 16th, 2008 09:16 pm by Citizen |
|||||||||
|
lprgcFrank Regular Member 
|
I picked this up from the Volokh Consipracy today... I think that we need to be aware of this as one of the tools to protect our firearms rights. Personal observation - this is another example of how the framers of the constitution had a clear understanding and, like the second amendment, got corrupted over time and needs to get dusted off so people know their rights as jurors. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2...tml#1218815216. "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. " http://www.fija.org/ from http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/...-the-ointment/ "Like so many of America’s early leaders, John Adams was a strong proponent of jury nullification. Here’s Adams: “It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” C.F. Adams, “The Works of John Adams,” 253-255 (1856)" |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member 
|
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, also called judgment non obstante veredicto or JNOV) is a type of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that is ordered at the conclusion of a jury trial. J.N.O.V. is the practice in American courts whereby the presiding judge in a civil jury trial may overrule the decision of a jury and reverse or amend their verdict. In literal terms, the judge enters a verdict notwithstanding the jury findings. This intervention, often requested but rarely granted, permits the judge to exercise discretion to avoid extreme and unreasonable jury decisions.[1] One of our learned experts in every matter--his expertise being that he is always full of @#$%, states the "jury has the final say." His record of never being right is still unbroken. Don't assume the jury has the final word--especially should you file a civil action against the cops. They don't. That being said, I agree with Citizen and also strongly support JN. My reasons, at length, have been given in another post. Last edited on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 12:41 am by Gunslinger |
|||||||||
|
Ohio Patriot Regular Member
|
Absolutely. A jury has two duties:
The problem, of course, is a judge will not tell a jury about Step #1 - he or she will only tell the jury about Step #2. If you are on a jury, you should always perform Step #1, regardless of what the judge says. Last edited on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 01:57 am by Ohio Patriot |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
Gunslinger wrote: Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, also called judgment non obstante veredicto or JNOV) is a type of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that is ordered at the conclusion of a jury trial. Ughhhhh. This from the info linked under judgement as a matter of law: JMOL motions may also be made after the verdict is returned, where they are called "renewed" motions for judgment as a matter of law (RJMOL), but the motion is still commonly known by its former name, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or j.n.o.v. (from the English judgment and the latin non obstante verdicto). However, in order to move for j.n.o.v., the movant must have moved for a JMOL before the verdict as well. This procedural quirk is necessary because it is considered a violation of the 7th amendment for a judge to overturn a jury verdict. Instead, the judge is said in a j.n.o.v. to be reexamining not the verdict, but his previous rejection of JMOL. I hope either the report is inaccurate, or it isn't used to undermine jury powers and privileges. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member 
|
Jury nullification is one of the big advantages of trial by jury, IMO. In fact, I think every jury should be instructed that they cannot vote to convict if they feel the punishment exceeds the crime. The fact that most juries are instead carefully not given nullification instructions underlines the corruption of our modern "justice" system. |
|||||||||
|
hsmith Regular Member
|
Man, not much of a difference of opinion here  With unjust laws disarming people, I am glad to see the community "agrees" on an issue. But a lot more view points are being posted I am glad to read. Lysander Spooner had some great thoughts on this if you haven't read them. |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
Citizen wrote: Gunslinger wrote:Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, also called judgment non obstante veredicto or JNOV) is a type of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that is ordered at the conclusion of a jury trial. It's a fact of legal procedure and used more often than some believe. In any civil trial, if I was thinking we were going down, I'd motion for jnov as a matter of course. A renewal of the motion can be made after the verdict is given, should it be denied ante-verdict. Denial of the motion is standing for appeal, as well. If the judge feels that undue emotional consideration was given--the poor orphan against the heartless big corporation, when the orphan has no case but gets sympathy, he may grant the motion. |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
Ohio Patriot wrote: Absolutely.The jury's duty is solely to judge the facts in the case. The judge handles the law. If the law is unjust or idiotic, the jury in instructions is reminded that it is the law. They are only to judge the facts as to the defendent or respondent's comportment with respect to that law. If he violated it, their duty is to find him liable for doing so. Good or bad law, notwithstanding. What you advocate is a violation of the oath the jury takes and disobeys the instructions. That can lead to jnov. Should the jury do as you suggest, that is a very good definition of "jury nullification." |
|||||||||
|
Ohio Patriot Regular Member
|
Gunslinger wrote: Ohio Patriot wrote:Absolutely.The jury's duty is solely to judge the facts in the case. The judge handles the law. If the law is unjust or idiotic, the jury in instructions is reminded that it is the law. They are only to judge the facts as to the defendent or respondent's comportment with respect to that law. If he violated it, their duty is to find him liable for doing so. Good or bad law, notwithstanding. What you advocate is a violation of the oath the jury takes and disobeys the instructions. That can lead to jnov. Should the jury do as you suggest, that is a very good definition of "jury nullification." Um, that is the whole idea behind jury nullification... to give the jury the authority to judge the law.  I - and countless others - believe this is a good thing. |
|||||||||
|
Gentleman Ranker Opt-Out Member 
|
I have a very lay knowledge of the law, but IIRC from my reading, as a practical matter, it comes down to this:
Personally, I would not hesitate to vote and argue for "not guilty" if I thought "guilty" would involve a miscarriage of justice (broadly defined) or violation of common sense in any particular case, regardless of the letter of the law. If that constitutes jury nullification, so be it. regards, GR Last edited on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 01:44 pm by Gentleman Ranker |
|||||||||
|
lprgcFrank Regular Member
|
Gunslinger wrote:The jury's duty is solely to judge the facts in the case. The judge handles the law. If the law is unjust or idiotic, the jury in instructions is reminded that it is the law. They are only to judge the facts as to the defendent or respondent's comportment with respect to that law. If he violated it, their duty is to find him liable for doing so. Good or bad law, notwithstanding. What you advocate is a violation of the oath the jury takes and disobeys the instructions. Gunslinger you are inaccurate. Jury's not only have the right to judge the law - they have an obligation to judge the law and the facts. Go and read the founders materials from the Constitution on Jury trials - “It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” C.F. Adams, “The Works of John Adams,” 253-255 (1856)" I could not find any precedents for a Judge overturning a Jury's not guilty verdict. |
|||||||||
|
hsmith Regular Member
|
Gunslinger wrote: The jury's duty is solely to judge the facts in the case. The judge handles the law. If the law is unjust or idiotic, the jury in instructions is reminded that it is the law. They are only to judge the facts as to the defendent or respondent's comportment with respect to that law. If he violated it, their duty is to find him liable for doing so. Good or bad law, notwithstanding. What you advocate is a violation of the oath the jury takes and disobeys the instructions. That can lead to jnov. Should the jury do as you suggest, that is a very good definition of "jury nullification." So, if you for whatever reason resided in DC and you were sitting on a case where a good, tax paying, upstanding citizen had a handgun and shot someone breaking in to their house - you would vote guilty against that person? You would say "the law says it is illegal" even though the law violates their civil liberties at the heart of it? |
|||||||||
|
ilbob Activist Member
|
IMO, the jury has both the power and the duty to judge both the facts in a case, and the law pertaining to it. That does not mean that as a juror I would be inclined to ignore what the law actually says due to my own personal feelings about said law. Last edited on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 03:57 pm by ilbob |
|||||||||
|
unreconstructed1 Regular Member 
|
ilbob wrote: That does not mean that as a juror I would be inclined to ignore what the law actually says due to my own personal feelings about said law. actually, that is the entire reason that a jury trial exists. the jury. while no longer remionded of this fact by the judiciary, has the authority and the responsibility to judge the letter of teh law, AND the spirit of the law. while murder is illegal, I would never find a defendent guilty who murdered the man who raped his daughter, his wife, or his mother. Would any of you? That is Jury nullification at work. |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
Ohio Patriot wrote: Gunslinger wrote:Ohio Patriot wrote:Absolutely.The jury's duty is solely to judge the facts in the case. The judge handles the law. If the law is unjust or idiotic, the jury in instructions is reminded that it is the law. They are only to judge the facts as to the defendent or respondent's comportment with respect to that law. If he violated it, their duty is to find him liable for doing so. Good or bad law, notwithstanding. What you advocate is a violation of the oath the jury takes and disobeys the instructions. That can lead to jnov. Should the jury do as you suggest, that is a very good definition of "jury nullification." I thought you were stating the de jure duty of a jury, not your definition of jn. Sorry if I mistook your intent. |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
lprgcFrank wrote: Gunslinger wrote:The jury's duty is solely to judge the facts in the case. The judge handles the law. If the law is unjust or idiotic, the jury in instructions is reminded that it is the law. They are only to judge the facts as to the defendent or respondent's comportment with respect to that law. If he violated it, their duty is to find him liable for doing so. Good or bad law, notwithstanding. What you advocate is a violation of the oath the jury takes and disobeys the instructions. No I'm not. The judge determines and explains the law; the jury applies the facts in the case to that interpretation. The jury never, never has the authority to "judge" the law--that becomes jn. The law is fixed. The only exception is where the law is ambiguous to the point that the judge cannot adequately instruct the jury as to its meaning/intent. You're quoting philosophy; I'm talking legal procedures. And keep in mind, I'm talking civil court. No guilty or not guilty involved. Just a judgement for or against. In criminal court, a judge cannot overturn a verdict of ng; however, there is a thing called "directed verdict of ng" wherein he takes the jury out and acquits the defendant. |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
hsmith wrote: Gunslinger wrote:The jury's duty is solely to judge the facts in the case. The judge handles the law. If the law is unjust or idiotic, the jury in instructions is reminded that it is the law. They are only to judge the facts as to the defendent or respondent's comportment with respect to that law. If he violated it, their duty is to find him liable for doing so. Good or bad law, notwithstanding. What you advocate is a violation of the oath the jury takes and disobeys the instructions. That can lead to jnov. Should the jury do as you suggest, that is a very good definition of "jury nullification." Ummm, I'm in favor of JN in just the type of case you mention and have said so clearly. I only am posting what the law says about it, not my personal feelings. |
|||||||||
|
Task Force 16 Campaign Veteran
|
This would require the jurists to possess common sense. Have you ever heard of a presiding judge over rule a jury's "guilty" verdict? There was something on the news here in the past few months of a judge doing just that. I can't remember what the criminal case was about, but the judge said that he over ruled the jury's guilty verdict because he didn't believe that there was sufficient evidence presented against the defendant. He claimed that HE had "reasonable doubt" of the defendants guilt and ordered a retrial. In a reporters enterview he stated that the prosecutions evidence showed that the defendant "might have done it" and "could have done it" but did not, in his opinion, meat the critia of beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant "did do it". The jury heard the same evidence the judge heard in this case. |
|||||||||
|
PT111 Regular Member
|
Gunslinger wrote: No I'm not. The judge determines and explains the law; the jury applies the facts in the case to that interpretation. The jury never, never has the authority to "judge" the law--that becomes jn. The law is fixed. The only exception is where the law is ambiguous to the point that the judge cannot adequately instruct the jury as to its meaning/intent. The entire jury process in civil cases is quite different than in criminal cases. In civil cases not only are juries to determine fault but amount of fault and the question of jury nullification in a civil case is almost a moot point. Seldom are civil cases clear cut as to either fault or law but rather a difference of interpretation by the two sides. I think it one would be very challenged to find a civil case where true jury nullification occured. A judge can and does issue a directed of not guilty verdict when it is clear that the prosecution has not presented a clear case for the jury to decide. This is very much akin to the DA deciding not to press charges for lack of evidence. A difference between a directed verdict and dropping the charges is that with the directed verdict the defendent cannot be charged again if more evidence is found. However if the charges are simply dropped then no verdict has occured and it may be possible to be charged later. Last edited on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 06:27 pm by PT111 |
|||||||||
|
Thundar Regular Member 
|
Gunslinger wrote:
Sorry, but jury oaths are not part of the constitution, juries are. If I felt that injustice was being done or that a law was not constitutional, then I could not vote to convict. I would have absolutely no problem disobeying instructions from a judge. I will do what is right to ensure that justice prevails. The unconstitutional hijacking of our Republic by the likes of BATFE will not get a pass from me. Olofson would not have been convicted if I were a jury member, black robed imbecile be damned. |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
Thundar wrote: Gunslinger wrote: You don't need to be 'sorry' to me, I already said--twice, that I would participate in jn if I thought appropriate, oaths--none of which are part of the constitution, notwithstanding. Somehow this thread is confusing judgement notwithstanding, jury nullification and directed verdicts. They are three different things, although jnov and directed verdict are similar. What I said is juries consider facts, not laws, and that applies in civil or criminal suits. Guilt, or degree of liability in a civil suit, are based upon their finding of facts, not laws. Not in criminal court, civil court or kangaroo court. Their oath is to that effect, and is reinforced by the judge's instruction to the juries. Degree of liability is a finding of fact, not law. Guilt is never apportioned in criminal cases; liability often is in civil. However, both are based on facts entered into evidence. The judge explains the law, the jury applies it to the facts in the case. Whether you uphold the letter of the law is your decision if you're a juror. If you knowingly don't, you violate your oath as a juror. And nullify the law, accordingly. Jury nullification is actually law nullification, to be literally correct. |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
Gunslinger wrote: SNIP You don't need to be 'sorry' to me, I already said--twice, that I would participate in jn if I thought appropriate... They missed or lost the context, Gunslinger. I knew what you meant, but only because I was following the entire thread. Guys, go back and read the thread from the top. There is only one way that Gunslinger's comments can be taken that make sense. Otherwise, one has to assume he underwent electro-shock therapy between posts and totally reversed himself. He's on our side on this one. Don't take my word for it. Read the thread in full context. Last edited on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 11:15 pm by Citizen |
|||||||||
|
hsmith Regular Member
|
Gunslinger wrote:
np mate! plenty is taken out of context on the internet |
|||||||||
|
Liko81 Founder's Club Member 
|
I guess I will start by saying that anyone's opinion on this depends on their definition of what the jury does. Either way, it starts with the jury reviewing all the facts of the case and trying to come to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. The difference is the point on which they must come to a decision: A. Whether the defendant broke the letter of the law B. Whether the defendant committed an act for which they should be punished. Prosecutors argue for A, while defense lawyers argue for B. To be honest, both are fair interpretations of the jury as part of the judicial system. "A" implies that the jury is a trier of fact; their only purpose is to examine the evidence and determine whether the law on the books in its current form was broken. "B" implies that a jury has the power of a judge to decide questions of law, specifically the justice of applying the law in the case before them. Laws are often overturned on appeal; jury nullification of an unjust law is similar, though of course limited in scope. Whether right or wrong, I think my opinion is that it is necessary for juries to have that option, even if it is unintended. There is no enforceable method by which juries can be controlled to prevent nullification that wouldn't turn the jury into a rubber stamp for the trial judge and thus the government. The judge cannot tell the jury that they must find the defendant guilty, cannot set aside a not guilty verdict, and cannot instruct them so as to make an acquittal impossible. The power has been abused, true enough; KKK members walked free because their defense lawyers crammed the box with their buddies who said "good job burning that black church". However, the court can impose unfair restrictions the other way; judges can instruct juries that they cannot consider possible justifications because they weren't argued at trial. A jury however can sift through the testimony and evidence and come to no other conclusion; what happens then? |
|||||||||
|
ilbob Activist Member
|
unreconstructed1 wrote: ilbob wrote:That does not mean that as a juror I would be inclined to ignore what the law actually says due to my own personal feelings about said law. I look at it this way. The jury is there to judge the facts and the law as they apply to a specific case. Not to judge a particular law in general. I might decide in my infinite wisdom that a women charged with murdering her rapist should be found not guilty even though she clearly did it, while not trying to decide the murder law is somehow flawed. |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
ilbob wrote: unreconstructed1 wrote:ilbob wrote:That does not mean that as a juror I would be inclined to ignore what the law actually says due to my own personal feelings about said law. The law allows for reasonable defenses to breaking it. Self defense being one. Again, the trial would be on facts: was she defending herself, not law with respect to the jurors. The law stands--murder is illegal; the facts of the case determine a defense to violating that law, self defense. The judge would include this in his directions to the jury. In a case like this--which never would come to trial in the first place, he would instruct the jury that if they decide she acted in self defense, the law states they must find her not guilty. Jury instructions aren't always in favor of the prosecution. They merely define the law so the jurors can understand it and then decide what the facts proved--or did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
Citizen says: "Guys, go back and read the thread from the top. There is only one way that Gunslinger's comments can be taken that make sense. Otherwise, one has to assume he underwent electro-shock therapy between posts and totally reversed himself." Actually, I did and am now in favor of reasonable gun laws...  |
|||||||||
|
Gentleman Ranker Opt-Out Member
|
unreconstructed1 (17 August 2008 Sunday 11:19) asks:while murder is illegal, I would never find a defendent guilty who murdered the man who raped his daughter, his wife, or his mother. Would any of you? I realize that this will not likely win me any friends here, but I believe I would. We are not a nation of tribes, to take blood vengeance for wrongs done to us. If there is enough evidence for the defendant to know that there was a rape (or other crime) there ought to be enough evidence for legal process. No, legal process is not perfect, nor is justice always served. If I thought the killer had done everything possible to obtain redress legally, and had not received justice, I would try to recommend leniency or convict of the least crime possible ... but I would still vote to convict. At least, that's what I think sitting here at the keyboard. If the situation was egregious enough, I might vote "not guilty". But that would be the exception, not the rule. Laws are imperfect, often the result of political compromise, especially when dealing with malum prohibitum. But we are supposed to be a nation of laws, and jury nullification should be the exception, not the rule. Just MHO. regards, GR |
|||||||||
|
PT111 Regular Member
|
Gentleman Ranker wrote: unreconstructed1 (17 August 2008 Sunday 11:19) asks: I would not make such a blanket statement as saying I would never find someone guilty in a case like that. There are too many variables andnot nearly enough information to say that a rapist who is murdered by a father deserved it. Although it may very well turn out that it is justified the person that goes into a trial with the automatic attitude that a person is innocent is just as wrong as one who is determined to find one guilty. Otherwise we might as well do away with laws and courts. I have seen a case where even if a certain man had raped a certain woman I could not have found him guilty of rape. I know this sounds horrible but she deserved it. Luckily the man was strong enough not to do it. Last edited on Tue Aug 19th, 2008 12:30 am by PT111 |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
Gentleman Ranker wrote:unreconstructed1 (17 August 2008 Sunday 11:19) asks: I follow your logic, but I disagree with your conclusion. If the only purpose of a jury is to judge fact, how is a jury trial better than a judge trial? Presuming you are innocent, would you not wish the most astute and experienced person to determine the truth behind the facts? I have met more than a few Swedes who criticize our jury trial, saying a judge is more likely to deliver justice(!). Then again, none of them have ever been convicted of any crimes. These quotes come from the wikipedia article on Jury Nullification. Naturally, I'm happy that one of them is from Thomas Jefferson.  Thomas Jefferson wrote: I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. (Clearly a reference to judgement of law as well as fact) John Jay wrote: The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy. In my mind, the proof is in the facts( ). Jury nullification is carefully avoided at almost every trial, and we have a government that's run amok with too much regulation and unconstitutional law. I see a connection there. |
|||||||||
|
Gentleman Ranker Opt-Out Member
|
PT111 (18 August 2008 Monday 19:26) replies:I would not make such a blanket statement as saying I would never find someone guilty in a case like that. With respect, what I said was that I would default to voting "guilty" as the question was originally asked by unreconstructed1, for the reason(s) I gave. Did you mean to say "guilty" or "not guilty" above ? Further, I don't believe I said I would "never" vote either way. I do think that in the case of proven murder, I would default to "guilty" unless the circumstances were truly and stunningly exceptional. marshaul (18 August 2008 Monday 20:04) replies also, saying: If the only purpose of a jury is to judge fact, how is a jury trial better than a judge trial? Did I assert that the only purpose of a jury trial was to judge fact? If you can quote me to that effect, I would appreciate seeing it. My reasoning was more along the lines that, in general, laws should be preferred to individual judgments, at least in the case of those laws of long standing and broad general agreement, as is the case with most laws dealing with acts malum in se -- which include unreconstructed1's example of murder. I certainly believe that a jury should be able to acquit for any reason it so chooses, without fear of being overridden. IMHO it's a bit different with convictions. Still, I personally would not feel comfortable with sanctioning the kind of vengeance killing that unreconstructed1's example seems to me to be. OTOH, laws of the malum prohibitum type often have a "political" component to them, and I feel much less compunction about exercising "political" control over their application. In any case, I do agree with the idea that juries should have very broad (if not absolute) power of acquittal, if not necessarily conviction. I am sorry if I did not express myself clearly. regards, GR |
|||||||||
|
PT111 Regular Member
|
You caught me in a brain fart moment. I do think that most of us agree that juries must have leeway in their decisions and take everything into consideration. There are times that even an unjust law may be applicable and at other times it may not. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
Gentleman Ranker wrote:marshaul (18 August 2008 Monday 20:04) replies also, saying: You didn't say it was the only purpose, but you definitely implied it was the main purpose, saying that jury nullification (judging the law) should be an exception, not the rule. In my opinion, juries should judge both fact and law for every trial. That should be the rule. Obviously, for long-standing, agreed-upon prohibitions (like that of murder), a jury wouldn't actually have to spend any time deciding that the law is appropriate. Last edited on Tue Aug 19th, 2008 02:55 am by marshaul |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
Gentleman Ranker wrote: SNIP We are not a nation of tribes, to take blood vengeance for wrongs done to us. If there is enough evidence for the defendant to know that there was a rape (or other crime) there ought to be enough evidence for legal process. There was good scene in 1966's A Man for All Seasons that applies. A political spy had just been outed in Thomas More's dining room. His wife wanted More, as Chancellor of England, to have the man arrested. So did his son-in-law, Roper, a devout and impetuous young man. More saw no crime, thus no authority to arrest. A brief argument occurred. The argument shifted to whether Roper would arrest the Devil. Roper: "I'd tear down every law in England to get the Devil." More (anger rising): "Oh? If you tore down every law--and you're just the man to do it--when the Devil turned round on you, what would you do then?" "This country is planted thick with laws. Man's laws. If you tear them down, do you really think you could stand in the winds that would blow then?" "Yes, I'd give the Devil the benefit of law. FOR MY OWN SAFETY'S SAKE." Last edited on Tue Aug 19th, 2008 02:55 am by Citizen |
|||||||||
|
Tomahawk Regular Member 
|
This sounds complicated, but for me it's not. As a juror, I would judge first whether the law is a just law, and having passed that gate, whether or not the defendant has violated that law based on the facts. Failure to pass both of these filters results in me voting not guilty. Period. The right to vote any damn way I please is the right to freedom of thought and conscience, and I don't have to explain myself to anyone. Now, that's not to say that the court system may strip me of that power, either directly by overruling my decision or indirectly by deceiving me and my fellow jurors, or, as in the old days, threatening me with jail for not voting properly. I have no power over that. I am not an expert in the legal system or its procedural labyrinth. All I can do is what I judge to be right based on what I know at the time. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
Tomahawk wrote:This sounds complicated, but for me it's not. As a juror, I would judge first whether the law is a just law, and having passed that gate, whether or not the defendant has violated that law based on the facts. Failure to pass both of these filters results in me voting not guilty. Period. I would do exactly the same. Somehow, I suspect I'll never be actually end up on a jury for this very reason.  |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member 
|
Yes, I found the claim of being empaneled a dozen times revealing. |
|||||||||
|
murphy2 Regular Member
|
Having set on a few trial's as a jurist. The judges do not ever mention the fact that a jury can "nullify" a law. They say "you must "deside" in confines of a/the law" If a jury finds a law unreasonable it never changes the law (as stated in the Constitution). YES! I believe in jury nullification. |
|||||||||
|
Legba Regular Member
|
Well, as a juror, you are instructed to objectively consider the facts and the law and to render a verdict based on that. You are supposed to recuse yourself if you cannot uphold that exlicit or implicit oath. That said, if I were on a jury - irrespective of the law - if there were some manifest injustice that would be perpetrated by upholding such an oath (also considering the proportionality of the likely punishment as well as the fact of the conviction), then yes, I would vote my conscience. A trial is supposed to be a search for the truth in the furtherance of justice, and - as I have observed elsewhere - justice is to the law what love is to prostitution. The ideal usually differs from its mercenary representations. Having been through it recently, I dare say that it's disillusioning to go through the process. I would grant extreme latitude in giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused, given the formidable life-wrecking power that police and prosecutors wield. Juries of disinterested parties are ultimately the one check on that power. -ljp |
|||||||||
|
murphy2 Regular Member
|
Legba: Well said. |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
Legba wrote: Well, as a juror, you are instructed to objectively consider the facts and the law and to render a verdict based on that. You are supposed to recuse yourself if you cannot uphold that exlicit or implicit oath. That said, if I were on a jury - irrespective of the law - if there were some manifest injustice that would be perpetrated by upholding such an oath (also considering the proportionality of the likely punishment as well as the fact of the conviction), then yes, I would vote my conscience. I would only correct your statement in that jurors are to consider the facts of the case with respect to the law. They don't consider the law but accept it as directed by the judge. Otherwise, I'm in complete agreement. There are higher standards than black ink law. And many, many bad laws that should be changed, but until they are, justice will revolve on decent men doing the right thing on a jury. (Or decent women...gotta be PC... )Last edited on Wed Aug 20th, 2008 09:06 pm by Gunslinger |
|||||||||
|
lprgcFrank Regular Member
|
Gunslinger - thanks for helping me understand that we're on the same page. |
|||||||||
|
rmodel65 Regular Member 
|
didnt see it post as i skimmed through here is ron paul and some others on jury nullification http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA4GKG__B-s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRdse8zBzyI&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbw8rF_hA9I&feature=related |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
lprgcFrank wrote: Gunslinger - thanks for helping me understand that we're on the same page. My pleasure.  |
|||||||||
|
KBCraig Regular Member
|
Several have stated that they will judge the law first, then judge the facts. I agree with judging both, but I decided some years ago that if I find myself on a criminal jury, I will use this standard: 1. Did the defendant commit the act? 2. If yes, is that act a crime? 3. If yes, should it be? I've only served on one jury, on a civil case for medical malpractice. There was no law for us to judge, but as foreman I did head off the other jurors' kneejerk decision to find both doctor and hospital culpable, and award huge punitive damages. Instead, after we discussed the actual facts of the case, we found the hospital liable because the nurses didn't properly monitor the patient. The doctor was not liable, because the nurses never contacted him. The award was our best calculation of actual monetary damages and future medical care, plus quality-of-life damages for pain and suffering. This was not a case of hitting the lottery; the plaintiffs seemed pleased, but their two lawyers definitely weren't. I know the lawyers were expecting personal six-figure payouts, but they got much less than that. If they split 25%, each took home about $30k, minus a lot of expenses. |
|||||||||
|
murphy2 Regular Member
|
Karl Marx said something to this affect: " The best populist to instill communism, Is a democracy". We are and always have been a "Republic" ( although our "leaders" have forgotten). A Republic is ruled by law, A Democracy is ruled by majority. Our Constitution is the "LAW OF THE LAND". If one of our citizens decides to buck the majority and it is allowed by the constitution, so be it. The majority can not cause them any harm. Be it legal or otherwise. I am sick and tired of the Fr*ck*N socialist in this country under-minding my Constitutional rights! Put up, or shut up! If you want my "guns". Come and get them! Bring a lunch and some body-bags! |
|||||||||
|
Tomahawk Regular Member
|
murphy2 wrote: Karl Marx said something to this affect: " The best populist to instill communism, Is a democracy". We are and always have been a "Republic" ( although our "leaders" have forgotten). A Republic is ruled by law, A Democracy is ruled by majority. Our Constitution is the "LAW OF THE LAND". If one of our citizens decides to buck the majority and it is allowed by the constitution, so be it. The majority can not cause them any harm. Be it legal or otherwise. I am sick and tired of the Fr*ck*N socialist in this country under-minding my Constitutional rights! Put up, or shut up! If you want my "guns". Come and get them! Bring a lunch and some body-bags! Huh? Can you explain what this has to do with the topic? |
|||||||||
|
murphy2 Regular Member
|
Sure! Jury "nullification" is the best way to change "the law". For juries to "change the law" they have to know what the law says". We did not start out as a socialist country. It became one, through "public education". You see, the Government did not start, as the all "knowing power". But the people where to "control " the government. If you can-not understand this you have allot to learn. |
|||||||||
|
Tomahawk Regular Member
|
Last edited on Sat Aug 23rd, 2008 07:31 am by Tomahawk |
|||||||||
|
murphy2 Regular Member
|
My friend! Having sworn to uphold the Constitution of the USA. I stand corrected. I would never question the prerogative of a citizen. Honestly, I stand corrected. |
|||||||||
|
Comp-tech State Researcher 
|
Gunslinger wrote: I would only correct your statement in that jurors are to consider the facts of the case with respect to the law. They don't consider the law but accept it as directed by the judge. Otherwise, I'm in complete agreement. There are higher standards than black ink law. And many, many bad laws that should be changed, but until they are, justice will revolve on decent men doing the right thing on a jury. (Or decent women...gotta be PC... Maybe I'm missing something but, many states have some form of explicit authorization in their Constitution for jurors to "judge the law"....a few examples below The constitutions of Maryland, Indiana, Oregon, and Georgia currently have provisions guaranteeing the right of jurors to “judge” or “determine” the law in “all criminal cases." Article 23 of Maryland’s Constitution states: In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact.... Art. 1, Sec. 19, of Indiana’s Constitution says: In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts. Oregon’s Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 16, states: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases. Art. 1, Sec. 1 of Georgia’s Constitution says: The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be judges of the law and the facts. Edited for format Last edited on Sat Aug 23rd, 2008 10:22 am by Comp-tech |
|||||||||
|
Tomahawk Regular Member
|
Nice find, Comp-tech. |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
Comp-tech wrote: Gunslinger wrote:I would only correct your statement in that jurors are to consider the facts of the case with respect to the law. They don't consider the law but accept it as directed by the judge. Otherwise, I'm in complete agreement. There are higher standards than black ink law. And many, many bad laws that should be changed, but until they are, justice will revolve on decent men doing the right thing on a jury. (Or decent women...gotta be PC... Both common and case law are well established to mean "judge the application of the law (or apply the law as written and explained by the judge) via the facts of the case." Or, you could say 'see if the facts as presented determine the applicability of the law (violated or not) in the instant case." It doesn't mean "judge" the rightness (or correctness) of the law. The law is as written by the legislation passed to make it a law. In VA, the law banning radar detectors is stupid. But a jury would decide whether or not the defendant did in fact have one (prima facie proof of violation of the law) based on the facts presented. If he did, and you found him not guilty--when he clearly violated the law, that is jn. Extenuating circumstances can come into play: he bought the detector in NC and it was still in the box when stopped in VA for, say, speeding. The cop is a dick and tickets him for having a detector--again, prima facie proof of violation. The jury could then take a reasonable interpretation of extenuating circumstances--no intent, and find ng. That would not be jn. Last edited on Sat Aug 23rd, 2008 05:06 pm by Gunslinger |
|||||||||
|
Comp-tech State Researcher
|
Gunslinger wrote:Both common and case law are well established to mean "judge the application of the law (or apply the law as written and explained by the judge) via the facts of the case." Or, you could say 'see if the facts as presented determine the applicability of the law (violated or not) in the instant case."(2) It doesn't mean "judge" the rightness (or correctness) of the law. The law is as written by the legislation passed to make it a law. In VA, the law banning radar detectors is stupid. But a jury would decide whether or not the defendant did in fact have one (prima facie proof of violation of the law) based on the facts presented.(1) If he did, and you found him not guilty--when he clearly violated the law, that is jn. Extenuating circumstances can come into play: he bought the detector in NC and it was still in the box when stopped in VA for, say, speeding. The cop is a dick and tickets him for having a detector--again, prima facie proof of violation. The jury could then take a reasonable interpretation of extenuating circumstances--no intent, and find ng. That would not be jn. (1) I agree with your description of what jn is and isn't...but, many juries have returned ng based on their determination of the "rightness" of a particular law. In the early 1800s, jn was used in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act. In the mid 1800s, northern juries used jn in cases brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws. In the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries used jn in cases brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws....in fact, jn may very well have helped to end prohibition. (2) The above are all examples of how juries have indeed used jn to judge the "correctness" or "rightness" of a particular law. Every Constitution that I'm aware of has some statement of Rights like "all political power is inherent in the people" and "they have at all times an inalienable right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient" etc..... If the people have the ultimate Right of revolution to protect their liberties, then they most certainly also have the lesser included and more gentle Right of jn to protect their liberties against laws they find outside of "rightness" or "correctness". |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
We're saying the same thing. JN is and will always be a factor in justice based jury decisions. But it only gives that defendant the benefit. The bad law remains for the next poor sob to hope a jury will side with substantial justice, and not the easy way out. |
|||||||||
|
Comp-tech State Researcher
|
Gunslinger wrote: We're saying the same thing. JN is and will always be a factor in justice based jury decisions. But it only gives that defendant the benefit. The bad law remains for the next poor sob to hope a jury will side with substantial justice, and not the easy way out. Ageed....just too bad that most, if not all, courts not only do not make juries aware of JN, they even go so far as to prohibit them from being told about it by defense attorneys etc. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
I made the following post in another thread, but it's relevant here so I thought I'd post it. unreconstructed1 wrote: If you ask me, it would be a much better system if, instead of waiting for an unconstitutional law to be passed, waiting for someone to complain, waiting for a court date, etc. If SCOTUS's job was simply to review each law before it was presented on the floor, and signing of on the constitutionality of it THEN, which is what I imagine the founders probably had in mind in the first place. Fie! Certainly not! Thomas Jefferson wrote: The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. Thomas Jefferson also wrote: To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. The people should rely on their own powers (e.g. jury nullification) to ensure the constitutionality of laws enacted by their representatives. We should not rely on the good graces of men appointed for life to a position with powers they don't rightfully have. In fact, the judiciary is responsible for taking our powers (for example, the above-mentioned jury nullification) as much as is either other branch, while we sit idly by and pray for a mitigating decision, and heap praise upon them on the rare occasions when we receive such a decision. Thomas Jefferson wrote: I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.(emphasis mine) Thomas Jefferson wrote: The juries [are] our judges of all fact, and of law when they choose it. Thomas Jefferson wrote: If the question before [the magistrates] be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.(emphasis mine) Wikipedia wrote: In recent years, judges seem to be less likely to favor jury nullification. While unable to take away the power of nullification, they have done much to prevent its use.... Once again, Jefferson was right. We would do well to read his words, rather than assume we know what they were. Last edited on Mon Sep 1st, 2008 08:57 am by marshaul |
|||||||||
|
Tomahawk Regular Member
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz93.html
Sept. 5 Is Jury Rights Day. Do You Know Yours?
To grasp why the Bill of Rights leads off by barring Congress from “establishing” any religion, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” you must understand that in 18th century England there was no “separation of church and state.” The English monarch to this day includes in her title “Fidele Defensor” – Defender of the Faith. Which helps explains why even our right to a jury trial stems directly from this era. In 1670, it was declared illegal to hold a religious gathering or preach a sermon in England which was not a “Church of England” sermon. Dissident churches, including the Quaker meeting houses, were closed. Unable to get into his London meeting house, William Penn led a Quaker meeting in the street outside. He was arrested and put on trial on Sept. 5, 1670, 338 years ago this week. The judges explained to the jury that preaching a nonconformist sermon was illegal, and Penn had been caught doing just that. They instructed the jury to convict. The jury asked to be read the wording of the law Penn was said to have violated. The judges told them they didn’t need to read any stinking law, they were to “take the law as we give it to you” – an insufferably aristocratic phrase that’s cropping up a lot in our own courthouses, these days. The jury said if they couldn’t see the law, they weren’t going to convict. In fact, God bless them, they unanimously acquitted William Penn, who was thus free to emigrate to America, where he subsequently got his picture on a box of oats, and presumably did some other stuff. The judges were not pleased. They locked the jury in an upstairs room, telling them they’d get no food or water – they couldn’t even come down to use the outhouse – till they convicted. The jury, led by one Edward Bushel, would not relent. Friends passed them jugs of water on poles. Eventually Bushel and a few others, sticking by their guns, were thrown in prison. The case went to the highest court in the land. And lo and behold, reaching back to Anglo-Saxon precedent, England’s Court of Common Pleas ruled the jury was right – they were under obligation to follow no one’s orders as to what verdict they could reach. Juries were and remain to this day free to vote their conscience, even in direct contravention of the instructions of the judge; they cannot be punished for doing so. On these shores, the precedent was upheld in the case of John Peter Zenger, charged in 1735 with libeling the king. British law did not allow “truth” as a defense. If you published a criticism of the king, that was criminal libel. Zenger admitted he’d printed the pamphlet, and everyone could see it was critical of the king. The court therefore instructed the jury to convict. The American jury told the judge where he could shove it, thus not only confirming American jury rights, but also handing us a little thing we like to call “Freedom of the Press.” The next time you’re called for jury duty and the judge tells you “We don’t have that here; you must take the law as I give it to you,” you have two choices. You can tell him he’s lying (in which case he’ll send you home), or you can keep your mouth shut, get seated on that jury, and then tell your fellow jurors the guy in black has been lying, once you’re safely ensconced in the jury room. This Friday, Sept. 5, jury rights activists across the nation will once again celebrate the juror’s right to render a verdict based on his or her conscience, even if in direct contravention to every “instruction” of the court. If you think the War on Drugs is absurd, counterproductive, or unconstitutional (it’s all three) and you find yourself on a drug jury, you can – some would hold you have a moral duty to – vote to acquit no matter what you believe the defendant did. If you can’t get all your fellow jurors to go along with you, hang the jury. Refuse to let it convict. They can’t do a thing but snarl at you like chained curs. Make the state re-try the case. Chances are there’ll be even more opponents of the War on Drugs on the defendant’s next jury – providing everyone keeps their mouths shut during “voir dire” and doesn’t help the court to stack a jury full of obedient pro-Drug-War stooges. For more information, go to http://www.fija.org. The D.C. Court of Appeals held in the 1972 Vietnam draft case U.S. vs. Dougherty that “The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions from the judge. Most often commended are the 18th-century acquittal of John Peter Zenger on charges of seditious libel and the 19th-century acquittals in prosecutions under the fugitive slave laws. In United States v. Moylan in 1969, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled “If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence. … If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.” In Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794, Chief Justice John Jay, speaking for a unanimous Court, instructed the jury: “It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. … Both objects are lawfully within your power of decision.” Does the local black-robed political hack trying to intimidate you out of voting your conscience in the jury room think he is a superior authority on our system of law and jury trial than John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court?  If he aims to direct your deliberations, ask him to come back into the jury room and guide you. He cannot. He is forbidden to do so. Why do you suppose that is? “The judge cannot direct a verdict it is true,” said Mr. Justice Holmes, for the majority in Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920, “and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts.” That is the truth, and the truth shall set us free. The rest is lies, and the goal of the black-robed liars is ever to get us to hold out our wrists for the manacles of their tyranny – doing it docilely, and thanking them for the favor. September 5, 2008 Vin Suprynowicz [send him mail] is assistant editorial page editor of the daily Las Vegas Review-Journal and author of The Black Arrow. Copyright © 2008 Vin Suprynowicz Last edited on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 01:41 am by Tomahawk |
|||||||||
|
Comp-tech State Researcher
|
Excellent post Tomahawk... |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
Excellent post indeed. I missed it when it was first posted. |
|||||||||
|
mpg9999 Regular Member
|
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/08/14/juror-becomes-fly-in-the-ointment/ 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?” That’s a fair question. It is a point that has been made in Cato’s 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 wasn’t 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 alternate–over 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. 1. Court precedents say jurors have no right to nullify. Well, yes, that is undeniable. But that’s like someone saying in 1950 that court precedents tell us that ”separate, but equal” is the law of the land–go read Plessy v. Ferguson. The real question is whether those court rulings are truly consistent with the Constitution. I would also point out that even though many modern court rulings express hostility toward jury nullification, no court has yet dared try to reverse a not guilty verdict or attempt to punish any juror who cast a not guilty vote in a jury room where the result was deadlock (not an untoward outcome, by the way). Judges do remove jurors from time to time, but there is no punishment. At least not yet. 2. Judge Young writes, “The impropriety of nullification emanates from the notion that ours is ‘a government of laws and not of men,’” and he attributes that proposition to our second president, John Adams, who also authored the Massachusetts Constitution. The quote is accurate, but Young is mixing up legal principles and does not know Adams well enough. Like so many of America’s early leaders, John Adams was a strong proponent of jury nullification. Here’s Adams: “It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” C.F. Adams, “The Works of John Adams,” 253-255 (1856)(emphasis added). 3. Jury nullification undermines the rule of law. This is simply another variation of objection #2 above. There is a logical fallacy to this objection. Jury nullification is assumed to be improper–so it undermines “the law.” It is like saying a presidential pardon undermines the “rule of law.” But if the president has the power to pardon, and he does, he can exercise it (though we may or may not like the result in particular cases). This is the way in which to understand jury nullification. The framers of the American Constitution considered it to be part and parcel of what a criminal jury trial was all about. Some state constitutions, such as Indiana, Maryland and Oregon, explicitly provide that juries have the power to judge the law and the facts in criminal cases. Judges are the ones that have undermined the “rule of law” by pretending those provisions mean the opposite of what they say. Judge Young expressed alarm about the recent Time magazine article by David Simon and his The Wire colleagues that calls for jury nullification in drug cases. But that article has revived a debate that we should all welcome. For much more on this subject, go here, here, here, and here. |
|||||||||
|
Thundar Regular Member
|
mpg9999 wrote: Thundar direct comments after ***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?” 1. Court precedents say jurors have no right to nullify. ***The constitution does not say that juries have to follow court precedent.*** 2. Judge Young writes, “The impropriety of nullification emanates from the notion that ours is ‘a government of laws and not of men,’” ***The misapplication of history is quite sad to see, but understandable from the men in black robes. The history was that the crown used admiralty courts, which have never had juries due to the complex nature of the laws of the sea and the lack of understanding by the common man, to do an end run around jury nullification by our forefathers. Yup lots of sedition convictions in British Admiralty Court. The Declaration of Independence spoke of this injustice in one of the grievances: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury. Jury nullification undermines the rule of law. ***The sanctity of the jury IS the rule of law. Jury rigging by judges grossly distorts and undermines the rule of law.*** This reading is very important to those that believe in the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. Insist on only secret ballots in the jury room. You are entitled to that. Do not let your objections rest on constitutional grounds alone. Any doubt that you may have can be argued as reasonable doubt. You cannot be dismissed for reasonable doubt. FIJA has lots of suggestions about ensuring that you are able to exercise your jury duty without being kicked off of a jury, or even being excluded from a jury during the jury selection process. This case is a travesty that really should be exposed for what it is. Jury rigging by a Federal Judge. Shame on him. Last edited on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 02:27 pm by Thundar |
|||||||||
|
FreedomJoyAdventure Regular Member 
|
Judging the law, as well as the facts, is my right and responsibility as a juror. I know I'm not likely to hear to hear that from a judge. We have many, many laws that deserve jury nullification. |
|||||||||
|
Alexcabbie Regular Member 
|
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON. Many peole cite the OJ cas as jury nullification run amok. Well, I did not see the entire trial - some of us have to work for a living - but IMHO the reason OJ got off was not "Jury nullification" but rather sloppy police work by LAPD as well as sloppy case prep by the DA. From what I saw being presented to the Jury - who by law have to consider ONLY what was presented in the courtroom, I would have had to vote to aqquit. Let's go to Wisconsin, where a few years back an 18-year-old kid had a 16-year-old girlfriend with whom he had been having a sexual relationship. But because of a few day's difference in birthdates, he was not a paarticipant in a consensual relationship but rather a "Statutory rapist", and even though he got off with a light jail term he still had to register as a "sex offender" for the rest of his life, and bear the stigma of a felony for life into the bargain. Now since I am 55 years old and not really in the market for a ditzy 16-year-old I haven't followed the case but I think some kerfluffle resulted in either the Governor of the Parole Board fixing thins so the kid jusst has a misdemeanor and doesn't have to register. Or whatever. But had I been on that jury I would have voted to aqquit, again based on my admittedly incomplete understanding of the case but rather what I know of it from casual reading of the newspapers. But it seems to me that punishing a perfectly normal relationship between teenagers as a felony is more than a bit overboard, and this case seems to me to be one that just cried out for jury nullification Here in Virginia, criminal cases are styled: "COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA vs John Doe. Murder someone, steal a car, jaywalk; and the wrath of the entire Commonwealth is brought to bear upon you. What stands against the abuse of the law? The jury. And so Commonwealth law provides in so many words: "The jury shall be judges of both law and fact" This is as it should be, and Amen |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
Alexcabbie wrote:Let's go to Wisconsin, where a few years back an 18-year-old kid had a 16-year-old girlfriend with whom he had been having a sexual relationship. But because of a few day's difference in birthdates, he was not a paarticipant in a consensual relationship but rather a "Statutory rapist", and even though he got off with a light jail term he still had to register as a "sex offender" for the rest of his life, and bear the stigma of a felony for life into the bargain. Now since I am 55 years old and not really in the market for a ditzy 16-year-old I haven't followed the case but I think some kerfluffle resulted in either the Governor of the Parole Board fixing thins so the kid jusst has a misdemeanor and doesn't have to register. Or whatever. But had I been on that jury I would have voted to aqquit, again based on my admittedly incomplete understanding of the case but rather what I know of it from casual reading of the newspapers. But it seems to me that punishing a perfectly normal relationship between teenagers as a felony is more than a bit overboard, and this case seems to me to be one that just cried out for jury nullification http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2008/10/to-save-them-we-must-destroy-them.html We obviously cannot rely on the courts to protect us from such abuses. Jury nullification was the tool intended to mitigate such obvious legislative and judicial ignorance of right and wrong. |
|||||||||
|
Alexcabbie Regular Member
|
Marshaul- boy, I wish I had not gotten that sidewall puncture in my tire, I could be raking in dough right now. Here I am on the Internet, reading that blog you referenced. my response:  I would ask how stupid we can get, but even Stephen Hawking cannot define the limit of infinity, or so it would seem..... |
|||||||||
|
Tomahawk Regular Member
|
mpg9999 wrote: When the jury sent out more notes about a juror that wasn’t 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 alternate–over the objections of defense counsel. Shortly thereafter, the new jury returned with guilty verdicts on several cocaine-related charges. I wish I didn't read this. It made me so angry I almost threw my laptop across the room! Why is this POS judge not in a jail cell? Why is he not wearing a fresh coat of tar and feathers and riding a rail around the town square? Who are the cowards in the jury room who were sending notes out to this POS judge? Where is the higher court system to discipline this fool? And why must we feel so impotent, able to do nothing but sit in front of a computer and read this awful story and complain about it? I often try to moderate my words when speaking about government abuses because being calm and deliberative is the reasonable thing to do, and because I don't want to become a raving nut job. But it's really hard sometimes to stop myself from hoisting the proverbial Jolly Roger... |
|||||||||
|
Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel Regular Member 
|
I was talking about this with two men from my Church who came by last Sunday Afternoon. My answer is YES! But I believe even more in "Reverse Jury Nullification" where by you give someone who is truly guilty of a heinous crime, but by some technicality, may only qualify for a lesser one and my evade punishment, even a stronger sentience than the law would allow. I, for one, would execute all child molesters, traitors, and a bunch of other folks. Last edited on Thu Nov 20th, 2008 05:33 pm by Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel |
|||||||||
