The REAL Powers of a Jury

[rushmc 18]

Did you know this?

http://fija.org/docs/BR_YYYY_true_or_false.pdf

A man, handing out this info in front of a court house in CA has been jailed.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/jury-rights-advocate-mark-schmidter/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 644]

Jury nullification I believe.

It happens.
In some cases, I think it should happen every time.
Our gooberment has a nasty habit of stoopid laws.

[skydiver30960 0]

Perfect timing: I report for jury duty on August 8.

Elvisio "apparently I am a peer" Rodriguez

[devildog 0]

Yup, knew about that, though admittedly only recently. I understand that there are judges out there that will have you replaced mid-trial with an alternate if you're found out or come out of the closet, to speak, with nullification on your mind.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[Andy9o8 0]

devildog

Yup, knew about that, though admittedly only recently. I understand that there are judges out there that will have you replaced mid-trial with an alternate if you're found out or come out of the closet, to speak, with nullification on your mind.

Yep; not just replaced, but in some instances held in contempt of court. Prospective jurors are questioned, under oath, re: whether they have any biases that would predispose or interfere with blah blah, etc. They're required to answer such questions truthfully as much as any other person speaking under oath. So if they answer "No" and then engage in jury nullification, then at the very least they've violated their oath of office as a juror, and it might even be viewed, by a pissed-off judge, as perjury.

Some years ago I spent a day on jury duty. I got called as a prospective juror in a capital murder/death penalty case. When we as a group were asked if anyone was so opposed to the death penalty that they could not in good conscience convict, I was one of several who raised their hand; and I was excused from that panel. I thought about maybe trying to get on a capital case just so I could prevent the death penalty from being imposed during the penalty phase; but doing so would have violated at least 2 oaths, so I was just straight-up honest about it.

[normiss 644]

Kudos buddy.

As much as I can see it being used, and would sometimes personally want to....

It's one of the things that bothered me about the Jodi Arias case. How the hell do you get on a DP qualified jury only to not support the proper penalty?
I don't support, but I do understand that we as a society, do.

[lawrocket 3]

Jury nullification presents a significant problem. What's the purpose of a law if it can either be applied or nullified on the basis of the whim of whomever happens to be there?

So three jurors disagree with the tax laws. And then they find a tax cheat not guilty. What the hell is the point of a law, then?[email]

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Andy9o8

***Yup, knew about that, though admittedly only recently. I understand that there are judges out there that will have you replaced mid-trial with an alternate if you're found out or come out of the closet, to speak, with nullification on your mind.

Yep; not just replaced, but in some instances held in contempt of court. Prospective jurors are questioned, under oath, re: whether they have any biases that would predispose or interfere with blah blah, etc. They're required to answer such questions truthfully as much as any other person speaking under oath. So if they answer "No" and then engage in jury nullification, then at the very least they've violated their oath of office as a juror, and it might even be viewed, by a pissed-off judge, as perjury.

Some years ago I spent a day on jury duty. I got called as a prospective juror in a capital murder/death penalty case. When we as a group were asked if anyone was so opposed to the death penalty that they could not in good conscience convict, I was one of several who raised their hand; and I was excused from that panel. I thought about maybe trying to get on a capital case just so I could prevent the death penalty from being imposed during the penalty phase; but doing so would have violated at least 2 oaths, so I was just straight-up honest about it.

Glad you're honest. What is wrong with putting someone to death who deserves it? Tell me how much you'd love the creep sticking you with the knife. Maybe you'd feel different as your life slipped away.

[Southern_Man 0]

lawrocket

Jury nullification presents a significant problem. What's the purpose of a law if it can either be applied or nullified on the basis of the whim of whomever happens to be there?

So three jurors disagree with the tax laws. And then they find a tax cheat not guilty. What the hell is the point of a law, then?[email]

Well, counselor, it is a part of this thing called checks and balances...

It is an important right of the people against an overreaching government. The ballot box is not the only place the people are allowed to disagree w/ their leaders.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

>Jury nullification presents a significant problem. What's the purpose of a law if it can either be applied or nullified on the basis of the whim of whomever happens to be there?

>So three jurors disagree with the tax laws. And then they find a tax cheat not guilty. What the hell is the point of a law, then?

Quote

Well, counselor, it is a part of this thing called checks and balances...

It is an important right of the people against an overreaching government. The ballot box is not the only place the people are allowed to disagree w/ their leaders.

[Southern_Man 0]

Andy9o8

Quote

>Jury nullification presents a significant problem. What's the purpose of a law if it can either be applied or nullified on the basis of the whim of whomever happens to be there?

>So three jurors disagree with the tax laws. And then they find a tax cheat not guilty. What the hell is the point of a law, then?

Quote

Well, counselor, it is a part of this thing called checks and balances...

It is an important right of the people against an overreaching government. The ballot box is not the only place the people are allowed to disagree w/ their leaders.

Then what you're referring to essentially is jury nullification as a form of deliberate civil disobedience. And a hallmark of civil disobedience is the risk of punitive consequences (and I say that purely academically). As I pointed out above, a juror who deliberately engages in it runs the risk of contempt of court or even perjury. On a practical level, it may be hard to catch a juror at it, but if he's sufficiently open about it in the deliberation room, and another juror reports it to the judge, those consequences could occur.

[kallend 1,683]

lawrocket

Jury nullification presents a significant problem. What's the purpose of a law if it can either be applied or nullified on the basis of the whim of whomever happens to be there?

So three jurors disagree with the tax laws. And then they find a tax cheat not guilty. What the hell is the point of a law, then?

I can conceive of a situation where following the letter of the law would result in a clearly unJUST outcome. By what process can a jury indicate this

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.