Do you believe in the right of Jury Nullification?

[Citizen]

imported post

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.

...we are supposed to be a nation of laws,...

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 toget 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."

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

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]

imported post

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. :quirky

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Yes, I found the claim of being empaneled a dozen times revealing.

 

[murphy2]

imported post

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]

imported post

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]

imported post

Legba: Well said.

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

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.

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

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...)

 

[lprgcFrank]

imported post

Gunslinger - thanks for helping me understand that we're on the same page.

 

[rmodel65]

imported post

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]

imported post

lprgcFrank wrote:

Gunslinger - thanks for helping me understand that we're on the same page.

My pleasure.

 

[KBCraig]

imported post

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]

imported post

Karl Marx said something to this affect: " The best populist to instill communism,Is a democracy". We are and always have been a "Republic" (althoughour "leaders" have forgotten). A Republic is ruled by law, A Democracy is ruled bymajority.Our Constitution is the "LAW OF THE LAND". If one of our citizens decides to buckthe 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 socialistin 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]

imported post

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" (althoughour "leaders" have forgotten). A Republic is ruled by law, A Democracy is ruled bymajority.Our Constitution is the "LAW OF THE LAND". If one of our citizens decides to buckthe 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 socialistin 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]

imported post

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]

imported post

 

[murphy2]

imported post

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]

imported post

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

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Nice find, Comp-tech.

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

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...)

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

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.