I was called for jury duty yesterday--consternation ensued

[branford]

162. You can personaly define a term any way you wish,

however, you cannot dispute how a term is commonly and generally understood by most of the populace.

Jury nullification is considered an act of justice by an honest jury who examines all the evidence in a trial in good faith, and only then decides that justice requires an acquittal. Such jury nullification is certainly rare and controversial, but very few scholars and jurists believe that any of the jurors in such a scenario would have committed a crime. Lying, misrepresenting or knowingly omitting pertinent information to counsel and the court in order to serve on a jury and sway the results, conversely, is unquestionably perjury, not "nullification," and quite likely criminal contempt and fraud. Assuming that such an activist juror was actually chosen, wasn't discovered by the other jurors and quickly replaced by an alternate, and even if they were successful in hanging the jury or causing an acquittal, criminal charges against the juror would still be possible.

As to my qualifications to discuss the nature and impact of jury nullification, as I've discussed in other posts on DU, I've been practicing trial attorney in NYC for over 17 years, and before that, it was one of the many issues I researched while employed at the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. How about you? Do you have more to offer than vague citations to the Magna Carta?

You complain about the erosion of the right to trial by an impartial jury. Could you kindly explain how individuals committing perjury to sway juries, a practice you appear to support, improves, rather than worsening, the issue? If racists, sexists or other prejudiced undesirables lie to get on juries, is this also acceptable?

I would note that activist jurors are not an totally uncommon phenomenon in jury selection in either the state or federal courts in many areas, and these individuals espouse views encompassing the full political spectrum. Most believe themselves truly furtive clever, much to the amusement of most experienced counsel and virtually all judges. It often lightens the otherwise tedious mood during bench conferences. Although most claims of bias are not genuine and simply mechanisms to avoid jury duty, both real overt and covert bias are not as difficult discern as many here would imagine.

In actuality, most individuals who try to sneak onto juries with unlawful motives are fairly easy to distinguish and dismiss, and the few who get by are usually discovered by other jurors, questions and investigated, and then quickly removed by the judge. Most jurors, both civil and criminal, take their duties very seriously and honestly and do not appreciate those jurors who do not. This simple understanding is hardly controversial among attorneys and other jurists. The most that an activist juror realistically could hope to achieve in a criminal trial in the vast majority of instances is a hung jury, with an almost guaranteed retrial with honest jurors and more determined and far less forgiving prosecutors, and possibly finding themselves as a future defendant.

It's very easy to talk big on an anonymous forum about how you would commit perjury and alone sway a jury, while in the real world before real judges, attorneys and other honest citizens, the bravado almost always turns into little more than personal fantasy.

If you oppose the drug (or any other) laws, recourse if found in the political and legislative sphere, not jury selection. If you cannot honestly overcome any bias, notify the court and counsel as directed, just as was done by the OP. That's how you ensure defendants (and all litigants) face a fair and impartial jury. Perjury will beget more perjury, and given the views and disposition of many of our fellow citizens, you will not like the result.