Jury nullification

[Christa]

"If the law is unfit, vote to acquit"

If a jury member considers the law to be unfair or unfit, they are allowed to acquit. I never knew it and thought I would share it with you.

The juror has a right to judge the law; a jury member can vote their conscience.

http://www.mikecann.net/2009/08/jury-nullification-if-law-is-unfit-vote.html

[endless october]

1. no way would i vote guilty on a nonviolent drug offense.

wastes our prison resources putting people in jail for a "forbidden" plant.

drug war should be ended immediately, and the revenue should be used to fund single payer.

[TexasObserver]

2. Yes, they can, but No, it isn't their right to judge the law.

Jurors are given their law instructions by the judge. Their job is to answer questions of a factual nature, and let the judge apply the appropriate judgment.

But some jurors lie to get on the jury. They say they'll do as the judge instructs, but then substitute their own judgment. It happens, but it is a violation of the juror's sworn duty.

[Statistical]

3. Jury nullification is legal

It is voting not guilty because the law is unjust.

It is judging the law not the person.

Jury nullification on an unjust law is not a violation of the juror's duty.

If the law is unjust then finding one guilty is not justice.

[TexasObserver]

5. It's legal. But it's still a violation of the juror's oath.

It's legal, but a judge can set aside a verdict he or she believes resulted from juror misconduct. Failure to follow instructions is jury misconduct.

You can defend jury nullification, but it is the result of jurors violating their duty, their sworn duty, and substituting their own judgment.

You seem to think that jury nullification can only result in justice being done. It can result in justice not being done, as when police routinely get off for killing some unarmed minority person.

[notesdev]

6. That's not correct

A jury is sovereign with respect to judging not only the accusation but the law itself. I don't use that word lightly - a jury judging the law has as much legitimacy as Congress passing one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a jury deciding the law is an ass, to use a phrase, and rejecting it.

[TexasObserver]

14. Yes, it is correct. You're wrong about the law.

I don't know what your area of expertise is, but it isn't law.

Jury nullification results from a jury disregarding the court's instructions and reaching a verdict based upon the outcome they wish, not the law or the court's instructions.

[grasswire]

19. and............?

Isn't that what democracy is? A system of laws devised by the people?

[dsc]

23. I think aquittals can't be overturned

unless the defendant engages in juror misconduct (say bribing jurors). I think, no matter what a jury does, if it aquits you skate.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. I've seen it do good and bad over time

It does drive the legal system to distraction, which at times is not a bad thing

[qazplm]

7. The best description of jury nullification

is not that it is legal but that it is permissible.

Jurors are supposed to apply the law. But we've also set-up the principle that we will not invade the jury's decision-making process and that we won't appeal the decision of a jury to acquit (not the same in many other countries where the prosecution can appeal an acquittal).

So the end result is we tacitly allow nullification even while we say jurors are supposed to follow the law.

[bemildred]

8. A jury is a determiner of fact.

That is it's role, to determine the facts of the case from the evidence presented. Among the facts that a jury determines is whether a crime has been committed. If they determine that no crime has been committed, they can aquit. It is as simple as that.

[grasswire]

10. no

A jury can find that a person committed the *act* but that the law prohibiting the act is unsound.

Jury nullification is the citizen's last refuge against tyranny. Do not dismiss it as a protection.

[bemildred]

12. The law is part of the evidence that the jury considers, but it does not compel them.

They are sovereign in their role as determiners of facts, and that includes the fact that a crime has or has not been committed. I am not dismissing it, I am defending it.

[bemildred]

17. Let me clarify:

I think people who support jury nullification make it too complicated, I think the term itself mis-states the case. A jury has a sovereign right to determine facts in a case, among them whether a crime has been committed. It may use the law in making that determination, but is not required to unless it thinks the law should apply in the case before it, and that is also one of the facts that it determines, whether the law ought to apply. They do not have the power to nullify the law, that belongs to Congress, the legislature, but they can and do decide whether to apply it to the case before them. That is their role. There is no need to create elaborate rhetorical justifications. The power of the jury is a remnant of the original sovereign power of the people from which all Constitutional political power derives, and as a sovereign power is does not require explanation or justification in its exercise, and in fact one does better to do neither, make your sovereign decisions and keep your reasons to yourself.

[TexasObserver]

22. Fortunately, the criminal justice system is run by those who DO know what they're doing.

Jury nullfication isn't talked about much because there's not much to it. Every once in a while, a jury consists of 12 jackasses who can't follow simple instructions and has some buffoon talking more loudly than everyone else on it about "jury nullification."

It's not some great moment in American jurisprudence. It's 12 ass hats flashing their behinds and thinking they look good doing it.

The next time jury nullification occurs, it will be to get some cop off after he killed a 14 year old boy in cold blood, because the jerks on the jury can't listen to, understand, and follow the simple instructions.

[grasswire]

9. thank you for this reminder

Jury nullification stands between the people and tyranny.

I was telling a group of people about it the other day and they were in great disbelief that (1) such a principle existed and (2) that there was such suppression of the use of it.

[KittyWampus]

15. Jury nullification could also allow Dr. George Tiller's murderer to go free.

Just saying.

It's a double edged sword depending on the jurists.

[grasswire]

18. democracy is messy

But I believe in the people's right to self-determination.

[grasswire]

11. Fully Informed Jury Association

http://www.fija.org

I've been supporting them for two decades.

[grasswire]

13. more

Jury nullification is a de facto and traditional power of juries. Judges rarely inform juries of their nullification power. The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of most modern common law systems—a general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations. A jury's ability to nullify the law is further supported by two common law precedents: the prohibition on punishing jury members for their verdict, and the prohibition (in some countries) on retrying defendants after an acquittal; and the constitutional prohibition on retrying criminal defendants (see related topics res judicata and double jeopardy).

Jury nullification is the source of much debate. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard of last resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny.<7><8> Others view it as an abuse of the right to a jury trial that undermines the law.<9> Some view it as a violation of the oath sworn to by jurors. Others view the requirement that jurors take an oath to be unlawful, while still others view the oath's reference to "deliverance" to require nullification of unjust law: "will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help God." United States v. Green, 556 F.2d 71 ~.1 (D.C. Cir. 1977).<10> Some fear that nullification could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions.<11> They point to the danger that a jury may choose to convict a defendant who has not broken the letter of the law. Jury nullification may also occur in civil suits, in which the distinction between acquittal and conviction is irrelevant.<12>

Nevertheless, there is little doubt as to the ability of a jury to nullify the law. Today, there are several issues raised by jury nullification.

First, whether juries can or should be instructed or informed of their power to nullify.
Second, whether a judge may remove jurors "for cause" when they refuse to apply the law as instructed.
Third, whether a judge may punish a juror for exercising his power of jury nullification.
Fourth, whether all legal arguments, except perhaps on motions in limine to exclude evidence, should be made in the hearing of the jury.

from wikipedia

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. I would vote to acquit on any case in which an obviously non-culpable co-defendant is charged with

capital murder.

[Egalitariat]

20. What would that result in?

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. A mistrial or an acquittal

:shrug: