I sat on a jury last year. The case was about a guy this cop busted for DUI. When we went to the jury room and viewed the video the cop took, I won over four people that wanted to hang the guy, using a statement the prosecuting attorney made, she said "you must take into account he human condition"

This guy was not driving when the cop stopped him, his wife was. The cop said when the couple passed him while he was sitting along side the road, their eyes met and and he thought the guy look nervous.

The couple pulls in next to a convenience store, where they have an argument and he downs about a half of pint of whiskey and she gets into the drivers seat and they proceed on their way.

Now about 15 minutes has passed, and as the woman, now driving pulls out, the cop decides to stop them.

He gives the guy a sobriety test and he fails, so he arrest him on DUI, and the guy is NOT driving.

Now the human condition is that it is possible for a guy who weighs maybe 140lbs. and stands 6' tall could conceivably get drunk that fast on that much booze. And he was not falling down drunk.

If the officer was so sure that something was actually wrong how come he did't pull in behind him when their eyes met?

And you could clearly tell on the video that he had the opportunity.

Now I did not cover everything, just most of the highlights, because I hate typing!!!

Common sense.

 

Random luck. I no longer work for the gubmit.

My last jury duty experience showed me what a crock the interviewing of prospective jurors was and is.

For one case, the courtroom was completely full of prospects, and of course 12 got the prime seats and I believe an equal number had alternate seats.

As various people were excused for cause, they then had to keep replenishing from the people in the back of the courtroom.

This went on for the entire morning and most of the afternoon.

By the time they had gone through easily 20 rejects, the judge was counting on people from the back seats remembering ALL the questions that had been asked during the day, and asking them if there was any previous question to which their answer would have been like the ones that got others disqualified.

Frankly, I got a strong feeling that most of the last few people who got on as jury members and alternate had only a week grasp of the morning's proceedings, and couldn't honestly say one way or the other what even most of the previous questioning had covered, yet they were being asked to swear that, essentially, IF they had been asked those questions, they would have answered in such a way that they would not have been dismissed.

So under those kind of conditions, I don't see how anybody could have been guilty of perjury, let alone be prosecuted, for failing to remember that part about applying the law as given by the judge.

OJ was not even ANY example of jury nullification based on the jury's view of the law, let alone a GOOD example.  That was strictly a racial verdict which OJ would never have been able to buy if he were not a rich celebrity.

The kaliban state supreme court has already ruled that jury nullification is illegal.

Soap box (no right to assemble for fun shows), ballot box (massive voter fraud), jury box (no jury nullifcation), and cartridge box (haha! can't get no guns neither!) have all been taken away in kalifornia. You kalidiots have no recourse left. Bow down and serve your masters.

Obviously the nullification would have to be, uh, not obvious.