Do you believe in the right of Jury Nullification?

imported post

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Ohio Patriot wrote:

Gunslinger wrote:

Ohio Patriot wrote:

Absolutely.

A jury has two duties:

1. Judge the law.
2. Judge the defendant.

The jury must first judge the law the defendent is accused of violating. If the jury decides the law is moral and constitutional, the jury can go to Step # 2. If the jury decides the law is immoral or unconstitutional, the jury does not advance to Step #2, and it must render an innocent verdict regardless of whether or not the defendant broke the law.

The problem, of course, is a judge willnot tell a jury aboutStep #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.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

Um, that is the whole idea behind jury nullification... to give the jury the authority to judge the law. :uhoh: I - and countless others - believe this is a good thing.

Click to expand...

I thought you were stating the de jure duty of a jury, not your definition of jn. Sorry if I mistook your intent.

imported post

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

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."

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

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" butdid 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.

imported post

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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 itmay bepossible to be charged later.

imported post

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."

Click to expand...

Sorry, but jury oaths are notpart ofthe 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.

imported post

Thundar 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."

Click to expand...

Sorry, but jury oaths are notpart ofthe 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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

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...

Click to expand...

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 hasto assume he underwent electro-shock therapy between posts andtotally reversed himself.

He's on our side on this one. Don't take my word for it. Read the thread in full context.

imported post

Gunslinger wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

np mate! plenty is taken out of context on the internet :lol:

imported post

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 isthe point on whichthey 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?

imported post

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I look at it this way. The jury is there tojudge 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.

imported post

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I look at it this way. The jury is there tojudge 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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

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 hasto assume he underwent electro-shock therapy between posts andtotally reversed himself."

Actually, I did and am now in favor of reasonable gun laws...:shock:

imported post

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?

Click to expand...

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

imported post

Gentleman Ranker wrote:

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?

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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 aswrong 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 manhad 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.

imported post

Gentleman Ranker wrote:

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?

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

(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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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

imported post

You caught me in a brain fart moment. :uhoh: 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.

imported post

Gentleman Ranker wrote:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.