User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 8:34:30 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FIFY Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. It is the job of the state Legislature (elected by the people) to write laws. If the people do not like those laws, they can elect different legislators to write better laws. It is not the duty of a jury to make up new laws or ignore laws that have been legally passed by the legislature use whatever legal means available to oppose them. Jury nullification is but one of those legal means. FIFY Do you not see that in the first case, a majority of the people have voted in Representatives to write laws, and in the second case, one person basically nullifies the will of the majority of the voters? Who do we want controlling the laws in a free society, the majority of the voters, or one person on a jury? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 8:36:07 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A clarification, please. In Texas it is legal for a person to open carry a rifle. If a person was on a jury and a guy had been charged with Disorderly Conduct for carrying a rifle openly, are you saying that a juror would be okay to say, "I don't care what the law says, I don't like people carrying those evil assault guns, and I believe he is guilty!" And vote for a conviction? Is that what you want? Or do you want jurors to follow the law? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Ill nullify the shit out of whatever I want. Laws against nullification will be nullified as well. A clarification, please. In Texas it is legal for a person to open carry a rifle. If a person was on a jury and a guy had been charged with Disorderly Conduct for carrying a rifle openly, are you saying that a juror would be okay to say, "I don't care what the law says, I don't like people carrying those evil assault guns, and I believe he is guilty!" And vote for a conviction? Is that what you want? Or do you want jurors to follow the law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 8:36:35 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The jury will nullify the law that says it is perfectly legal to carry a rifle openly in Texas. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In your hypothetical, he was not charged with open carrying a rifle, he was charged with disorderly conduct. The jury can choose to nullify the disorderly conduct charge, but the open carry law never comes into it. No, you are mistaken. As a matter of fact, we have a case such as this one coming up soon in our county. Although the law says it is legal to open carry a rifle, I expect the jury to find him guilty of Disorderly Conduct because they don't like what the law says about open carry of a rifle. Personally, I would prefer that they follow the law, instead of going with their "feelings". Mistaken about what? That your hypothetical OCer was charged with disorderly conduct? Or that the jury can choose to nullify it? The jury will nullify the law that says it is perfectly legal to carry a rifle openly in Texas. That's not jury nullification. If the law says that "Open carry is legal, and the open carrying of a rifle cannot form the basis for a disorderly conduct charge," then the judge should have dismissed the case. If the judge in such a case submitted it to the jury along with the law, and the jury ignored the law, then okay, jury nullification. Jury nullification is the concept that the jury choose not to apply the law when the law is clearly applicable to the facts presented to them. Let me ask you this O_P, can an otherwise legal activity ever form the basis for a disorderly conduct charge? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 8:43:25 AM EDT
[#4]
 Sorry to see some of the things being said here.
I suppose NFA/GCA/Hughes are just laws and must be obeyed. A renewed '94AWB would be the law of the land and we would be obligated to obey it. Soap box, ballot box, jury box. Then cartridge box. The lesson of Lexington and Concord needs to be revisited, it seems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 8:44:55 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry to see some of the things being said here.
I suppose NFA/GCA/Hughes are just laws and must be obeyed. A renewed '94AWB would be the law of the land and we would be obligated to obey it. Soap box, ballot box, jury box. Then cartridge box. The lesson of Lexington and Concord needs to be revisited, it seems. Sorry, but not surprised. It's typically lawyers who get upset about nullification. Them and the "government can do no wrong" crowd. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 8:46:13 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's not jury nullification. If the law says that "Open carry is legal, and the open carrying of a rifle cannot form the basis for a disorderly conduct charge," then the judge should have dismissed the case. If the judge in such a case submitted it to the jury along with the law, and the jury ignored the law, then okay, jury nullification. Jury nullification is the concept that the jury choose not to apply the law when the law is clearly applicable to the facts presented to them. Let me ask you this O_P, can an otherwise legal activity ever form the basis for a disorderly conduct charge? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In your hypothetical, he was not charged with open carrying a rifle, he was charged with disorderly conduct. The jury can choose to nullify the disorderly conduct charge, but the open carry law never comes into it. No, you are mistaken. As a matter of fact, we have a case such as this one coming up soon in our county. Although the law says it is legal to open carry a rifle, I expect the jury to find him guilty of Disorderly Conduct because they don't like what the law says about open carry of a rifle. Personally, I would prefer that they follow the law, instead of going with their "feelings". Mistaken about what? That your hypothetical OCer was charged with disorderly conduct? Or that the jury can choose to nullify it? The jury will nullify the law that says it is perfectly legal to carry a rifle openly in Texas. That's not jury nullification. If the law says that "Open carry is legal, and the open carrying of a rifle cannot form the basis for a disorderly conduct charge," then the judge should have dismissed the case. If the judge in such a case submitted it to the jury along with the law, and the jury ignored the law, then okay, jury nullification. Jury nullification is the concept that the jury choose not to apply the law when the law is clearly applicable to the facts presented to them. Let me ask you this O_P, can an otherwise legal activity ever form the basis for a disorderly conduct charge? That happens every time someone gets arrested for recording the police in public. Ain't illegal to do, but people get arrested for it anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 8:46:23 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you not see that in the first case, a majority of the people have voted in Representatives to write laws, and in the second case, one person basically nullifies the will of the majority of the voters? Who do we want controlling the laws in a free society, the majority of the voters, or one person on a jury? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No. It is the job of the state Legislature (elected by the people) to write laws. If the people do not like those laws, they can elect different legislators to write better laws. It is not the duty of a jury to make up new laws or ignore laws that have been legally passed by the legislature use whatever legal means available to oppose them. Jury nullification is but one of those legal means. FIFY Do you not see that in the first case, a majority of the people have voted in Representatives to write laws, and in the second case, one person basically nullifies the will of the majority of the voters? Who do we want controlling the laws in a free society, the majority of the voters, or one person on a jury? Do you not see that in the first case, those laws affect everyone under their jurisdiction, and in the second case, jury nullification affects only the defendant? A single jury may only nullify a law in a single case. If a particular law is nullified by juries with any regularity, then I would question whether that law has the support of the majority of the people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 8:49:41 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The jury will nullify the law that says it is perfectly legal to carry a rifle openly in Texas. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In your hypothetical, he was not charged with open carrying a rifle, he was charged with disorderly conduct. The jury can choose to nullify the disorderly conduct charge, but the open carry law never comes into it. No, you are mistaken. As a matter of fact, we have a case such as this one coming up soon in our county. Although the law says it is legal to open carry a rifle, I expect the jury to find him guilty of Disorderly Conduct because they don't like what the law says about open carry of a rifle. Personally, I would prefer that they follow the law, instead of going with their "feelings". Mistaken about what? That your hypothetical OCer was charged with disorderly conduct? Or that the jury can choose to nullify it? The jury will nullify the law that says it is perfectly legal to carry a rifle openly in Texas. Is there actually a law that states open carry is legal ? Usually it is just legal by default because there is no law against it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 8:56:38 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The purpose of a jury is to judge whether the facts prove that the law has been broken. No. It is the job of the state Legislature (elected by the people) to write laws. If the people do not like those laws, they can elect different legislators to write better laws. It is not the duty of a jury to make up new laws or ignore laws that have been legally passed by the legislature. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A jury is of no use if they are constrained to follow in lockstep with the judge's interpretation of the law. After all, if they are simply a rubber stamp for the court, why bother to have a jury at all? The purpose of a jury is to judge whether the facts prove that the law has been broken. Is it not better to place the jury in a position where they can judge both the facts and the law? No. It is the job of the state Legislature (elected by the people) to write laws. If the people do not like those laws, they can elect different legislators to write better laws. It is not the duty of a jury to make up new laws or ignore laws that have been legally passed by the legislature. So juries should never nullify in the face of fugitive slave laws, alcohol prohibition laws, raw milk laws, or NFA laws? As long as the law is on the books, they are bound to it until the next election cycle (or the next one, or the next one, or the one after that) in the hope that it will one day be overturned. That position provides little, if any restraint against tyranny. You are right that it is not the duty of a jury to make up new laws, nor do they have that power, but neither are they required to slavishly adhere to laws which they believe are unjust or "creatively" stretched. A nullification is not a "new" law, because laws do not make things legal - they make them illegal. In the absence of a law prohibiting it (for example, if that law is nullified), the natural state of any action is "legal." Quoted:
The law which makes openly carrying a pistol illegal, specifically exempts rifles or shotguns. I'm not aware of anything in 46.02 that even mentions "rifle" or "shotgun". It speaks only to handguns, illegal knives, and clubs, and is silent on long guns. Are you referring to somewhere else? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 8:57:53 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you not see that in the first case, those laws affect everyone under their jurisdiction, and in the second case, jury nullification affects only the defendant? A single jury may only nullify a law in a single case. If a particular law is nullified by juries with any regularity, then I would question whether that law has the support of the majority of the people. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you not see that in the first case, those laws affect everyone under their jurisdiction, and in the second case, jury nullification affects only the defendant? A single jury may only nullify a law in a single case. If a particular law is nullified by juries with any regularity, then I would question whether that law has the support of the majority of the people. That's an excellent point. I was just looking at a website of JN examples and found some pertaining to the Salem Witch trials. The Salem Witch Trials began in 1692. After a 100 percent conviction rate and the execution of 33 witches, in 1693, juries decided the court of Oyer and Terminer had gone too far. The next 52 trials ended in hung juries or acquittals. Frustrated, prosecutors ceased bringing cases to trial. Juries made it impossible to kill witches in Salem.
Another example is from NY in 1734 when a newspaper criticized the governor. Although it was illegal to criticize the government the jury declared the paper's owner "not guilty". [The defendant's lawyer] said if jurors cannot nullify laws, then "juries (are) useless . . . The next step would make the people slaves." According to the website that helped establish the freedom of the press. I'm sure there's other examples out there too. The site I found however seems to be focused on the north east It is a slow process of course, but jury actions can eventually change the law - especially when it's clear the will of the people is at odds with what's on the law books. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:00:02 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you not see that in the first case, a majority of the people have voted in Representatives to write laws, and in the second case, one person basically nullifies the will of the majority of the voters? Who do we want controlling the laws in a free society, the majority of the voters, or one person on a jury? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No. It is the job of the state Legislature (elected by the people) to write laws. If the people do not like those laws, they can elect different legislators to write better laws. It is not the duty of a jury to make up new laws or ignore laws that have been legally passed by the legislature use whatever legal means available to oppose them. Jury nullification is but one of those legal means. FIFY Do you not see that in the first case, a majority of the people have voted in Representatives to write laws, and in the second case, one person basically nullifies the will of the majority of the voters? Who do we want controlling the laws in a free society, the majority of the voters, or one person on a jury? The state has enough power. Every area of protection for the individual against wrongful or unjust conviction is a good thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:02:18 AM EDT
[#12]
I do know that in California, the right of a jury to judge both the law and the facts has been explicitly revoked (I can't remember if it's in law emanating from the legislature or in the constitution), as have a number of other common law rights, and jury nullification is expressly illegal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:04:12 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you not see that in the first case, a majority of the people have voted in Representatives to write laws, and in the second case, one person basically nullifies the will of the majority of the voters? Who do we want controlling the laws in a free society, the majority of the voters, or one person on a jury? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No. It is the job of the state Legislature (elected by the people) to write laws. If the people do not like those laws, they can elect different legislators to write better laws. It is not the duty of a jury to make up new laws or ignore laws that have been legally passed by the legislature use whatever legal means available to oppose them. Jury nullification is but one of those legal means. FIFY Do you not see that in the first case, a majority of the people have voted in Representatives to write laws, and in the second case, one person basically nullifies the will of the majority of the voters? Who do we want controlling the laws in a free society, the majority of the voters, or one person on a jury? Majority opinion does not trample on individual freedom. Your presentation indicates that you are in full support of the law. You know, because, it's THE LAW. THE LAW Violations for speaking against The Crown were also law. Established law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:04:37 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_5r4-496fViOHTcMiTLujwJwCpI_mnW2oC6xXQgUpoct=w1597-h815-no from the jury i was on... They say that. Whether it is your sworn duty is up to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:06:25 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do know that in California, the right of a jury to judge both the law and the facts has been explicitly revoked (I can't remember if it's in law emanating from the legislature or in the constitution), as have a number of other common law rights, and jury nullification is expressly illegal. Wow, talk about a law that's unenforceable. California...... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:09:09 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A clarification, please. In Texas it is legal for a person to open carry a rifle. If a person was on a jury and a guy had been charged with Disorderly Conduct for carrying a rifle openly, are you saying that a juror would be okay to say, "I don't care what the law says, I don't like people carrying those evil assault guns, and I believe he is guilty!" And vote for a conviction? Is that what you want? Or do you want jurors to follow the law? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ill nullify the shit out of whatever I want. Laws against nullification will be nullified as well. A clarification, please. In Texas it is legal for a person to open carry a rifle. If a person was on a jury and a guy had been charged with Disorderly Conduct for carrying a rifle openly, are you saying that a juror would be okay to say, "I don't care what the law says, I don't like people carrying those evil assault guns, and I believe he is guilty!" And vote for a conviction? Is that what you want? Or do you want jurors to follow the law? I want the government to follow the law damnit. TXL |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:11:20 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you not see that in the first case, a majority of the people have voted in Representatives to write laws, and in the second case, one person basically nullifies the will of the majority of the voters? Who do we want controlling the laws in a free society, the majority of the voters, or one person on a jury? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No. It is the job of the state Legislature (elected by the people) to write laws. If the people do not like those laws, they can elect different legislators to write better laws. It is not the duty of a jury to make up new laws or ignore laws that have been legally passed by the legislature use whatever legal means available to oppose them. Jury nullification is but one of those legal means. FIFY Do you not see that in the first case, a majority of the people have voted in Representatives to write laws, and in the second case, one person basically nullifies the will of the majority of the voters? Who do we want controlling the laws in a free society, the majority of the voters, or one person on a jury? The tyranny of the majority (or their representatives) can be just as dangerous as that of a king. I would rather laws created by the representatives of that majority be subject to scrutiny and review at as many levels as possible to prevent their abuse. What is your stance on the principles of 1798? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:12:03 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I want the government to follow the law damnit. TXL Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ill nullify the shit out of whatever I want. Laws against nullification will be nullified as well. A clarification, please. In Texas it is legal for a person to open carry a rifle. If a person was on a jury and a guy had been charged with Disorderly Conduct for carrying a rifle openly, are you saying that a juror would be okay to say, "I don't care what the law says, I don't like people carrying those evil assault guns, and I believe he is guilty!" And vote for a conviction? Is that what you want? Or do you want jurors to follow the law? I want the government to follow the law damnit. TXL Good luck with that. Actually it doesn't matter what we WANT the juror to do, nor what the court instructs the juror to do. The juror is the one who votes according to whatever he votes by. Conscience, evidence, whatever. The juror may not have the right, but he sure as fuck has the POWER. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:14:49 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is there actually a law that states open carry is legal ? Usually it is just legal by default because there is no law against it. To my knowledge, there is no such law. TX law controls the carry of handguns only, and has nothing to say about long gun carry, which therefore means that it is legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:17:10 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow, talk about a law that's unenforceable. California...... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I do know that in California, the right of a jury to judge both the law and the facts has been explicitly revoked (I can't remember if it's in law emanating from the legislature or in the constitution), as have a number of other common law rights, and jury nullification is expressly illegal. Wow, talk about a law that's unenforceable. California...... Not sure what the consequences are, but you'd pretty much have to make your reason for your vote known for them to have any case against you. Kind of like the hi-cap mag law, actually. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:18:14 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not changing the law on the books. It's choosing not to apply it, on an ad hoc basis, and is a sure way to run afoul of the equal protection of law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How so? If you don't intuitively understand that refusing to enforce the law on the books is changing the law on the books, I don't know what to tell you. It's not changing the law on the books. It's choosing not to apply it, on an ad hoc basis, and is a sure way to run afoul of the equal protection of law. Equal protection, you mean like how some folks DON'T get arrested for possessing a 30rd magazine because they are for the right political dickhead, and others lose their rights for the same thing. THAT's what you worry about? Laughable, imo. TXL |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:22:01 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's pretty standard. But you're instructed very differently if you're on a Grand Jury (at least where I am). They pretty much tell you as members of the community, you get to decide by whatever standards you see fit as to if you want to vote for an indictment. Pretty sure a lot of that is due to the difference between a grand jury and a petit jury. In any case, I've seen instructions like the one OP showed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:23:36 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course they're going to tell you that, but it's bs. Can't have the commoners flexing any muscle when it comes to the government, so it's better to tell them they can't do it. Most people will quietly go along, because they don't know any better. This man is correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:26:04 AM EDT
[#24]
There is a similar instruction in Florida.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:26:36 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure what the consequences are, but you'd pretty much have to make your reason for your vote known for them to have any case against you. Kind of like the hi-cap mag law, actually. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do know that in California, the right of a jury to judge both the law and the facts has been explicitly revoked (I can't remember if it's in law emanating from the legislature or in the constitution), as have a number of other common law rights, and jury nullification is expressly illegal. Wow, talk about a law that's unenforceable. California...... Not sure what the consequences are, but you'd pretty much have to make your reason for your vote known for them to have any case against you. Kind of like the hi-cap mag law, actually. I'm just not convinced he's guilty, she said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:26:50 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The existing law says it is legal to open carry a rifle. Voting to convict would be nullifying that law. Is that what you want, or do you want juries to follow the law? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ill nullify the shit out of whatever I want. Laws against nullification will be nullified as well. A clarification, please. In Texas it is legal for a person to open carry a rifle. If a person was on a jury and a guy had been charged with Disorderly Conduct for carrying a rifle openly, are you saying that a juror would be okay to say, "I don't care what the law says, I don't like people carrying those evil assault guns, and I believe he is guilty!" And vote for a conviction? Is that what you want? Or do you want jurors to follow the law?
Jury nullification does not provide for jurors creating laws, just for nullifying existing laws. The existing law says it is legal to open carry a rifle. Voting to convict would be nullifying that law. Is that what you want, or do you want juries to follow the law? Does the law say that it's legal- or that it's not illegal?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:28:08 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The tyranny of the majority (or their representatives) can be just as dangerous as that of a king. I would rather laws created by the representatives of that majority be subject to scrutiny and review at as many levels as possible to prevent their abuse. What is your stance on the principles of 1798? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. It is the job of the state Legislature (elected by the people) to write laws. If the people do not like those laws, they can elect different legislators to write better laws. It is not the duty of a jury to make up new laws or ignore laws that have been legally passed by the legislature use whatever legal means available to oppose them. Jury nullification is but one of those legal means. FIFY Do you not see that in the first case, a majority of the people have voted in Representatives to write laws, and in the second case, one person basically nullifies the will of the majority of the voters? Who do we want controlling the laws in a free society, the majority of the voters, or one person on a jury? The tyranny of the majority (or their representatives) can be just as dangerous as that of a king. I would rather laws created by the representatives of that majority be subject to scrutiny and review at as many levels as possible to prevent their abuse. What is your stance on the principles of 1798? Through challenges laws have been ruled unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:34:36 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, you're failing to make your case and resorting to name calling. I expect better. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Texas has a law specifically giving permission to do something, rather than restricting something? What is the text of this law? You are just being obstinate. The law which makes openly carrying a pistol illegal, specifically exempts rifles or shotguns. No, you're failing to make your case and resorting to name calling. I expect better. Some folks just can't handle someone questioning them and asking them to validate what they said. Then they storm off in a huff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:37:53 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A clarification, please. In Texas it is legal for a person to open carry a rifle. If a person was on a jury and a guy had been charged with Disorderly Conduct for carrying a rifle openly, are you saying that a juror would be okay to say, "I don't care what the law says, I don't like people carrying those evil assault guns, and I believe he is guilty!" And vote for a conviction? Is that what you want? Or do you want jurors to follow the law? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ill nullify the shit out of whatever I want. Laws against nullification will be nullified as well. A clarification, please. In Texas it is legal for a person to open carry a rifle. If a person was on a jury and a guy had been charged with Disorderly Conduct for carrying a rifle openly, are you saying that a juror would be okay to say, "I don't care what the law says, I don't like people carrying those evil assault guns, and I believe he is guilty!" And vote for a conviction? Is that what you want? Or do you want jurors to follow the law? O_P, should a gun owner in upstate NY who has been caught with standard-cap mags be convicted, even if one or more jurors disagree with the SAFE act? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:39:29 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
O_P, should a gun owner in upstate NY who has been caught with standard-cap mags be convicted, even if one or more jurors disagree with the SAFE act? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ill nullify the shit out of whatever I want. Laws against nullification will be nullified as well. A clarification, please. In Texas it is legal for a person to open carry a rifle. If a person was on a jury and a guy had been charged with Disorderly Conduct for carrying a rifle openly, are you saying that a juror would be okay to say, "I don't care what the law says, I don't like people carrying those evil assault guns, and I believe he is guilty!" And vote for a conviction? Is that what you want? Or do you want jurors to follow the law? O_P, should a gun owner in upstate NY who has been caught with standard-cap mags be convicted, even if one or more jurors disagree with the SAFE act? "Should" is not relevant. Only "Will" matters. WILL he be convicted? Perhaps. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:41:11 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Through challenges laws have been ruled unconstitutional. That is another valuable method to restrain the exercise of tyrannical laws, but it's existence does not invalidate or devalue other methods like jury nullification. Quite the contrary in fact - they reinforce each other and together make it more difficult for unjust laws to stand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:41:36 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem, as demonstrated in the original post, is that juries don't KNOW they can choose Not Guilty regardless of instructions dictum. To my knowledge a judge can overturn a GUILTY verdict (if he feels that the jury was out for vengeance for example), but a Not Guilty stands pat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The fact is jury nullification does exist. To my knowledge, the jury can not be informed that nullification is an option. Regardless, once given the case, a jury can decide that the charges are dumb, not applicable, exaggerated, etc. If the jury decides this, they can then deliver a not guilty verdict. They need not say anything more. That said, I don't think it's done that often in our system. The problem, as demonstrated in the original post, is that juries don't KNOW they can choose Not Guilty regardless of instructions dictum. To my knowledge a judge can overturn a GUILTY verdict (if he feels that the jury was out for vengeance for example), but a Not Guilty stands pat. What about Waco? After only 18 hours of deliberations (including the several hours necessary to study the judge's charge to the jury), following a six-week trial, the jury came back with "not guilty" verdicts for all 11 defendants on the murder and conspiracy to murder charges, convictions of five defendants for voluntary manslaughter, a few convictions for using firearms in the commission of a violent crime (which convictions were dismissed by the judge because those defendants had not been found guilty of any violent crimes) and seven weapons possession convictions.
One juror stated to the San Antonio Express-News, "When we heard all that testimony, there was no way we could find them guilty of murder." He added that "We felt provocation was pretty evident. When the firestorm started, everybody was trying to cover their behinds...I thought two agents in plain clothes should have gone in there and knocked on the door (to issue warrants)". https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/waco.tausch.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:41:53 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The jury will nullify the law that says it is perfectly legal to carry a rifle openly in Texas. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In your hypothetical, he was not charged with open carrying a rifle, he was charged with disorderly conduct. The jury can choose to nullify the disorderly conduct charge, but the open carry law never comes into it. No, you are mistaken. As a matter of fact, we have a case such as this one coming up soon in our county. Although the law says it is legal to open carry a rifle, I expect the jury to find him guilty of Disorderly Conduct because they don't like what the law says about open carry of a rifle. Personally, I would prefer that they follow the law, instead of going with their "feelings". Mistaken about what? That your hypothetical OCer was charged with disorderly conduct? Or that the jury can choose to nullify it? The jury will nullify the law that says it is perfectly legal to carry a rifle openly in Texas. There is no such law on the books in Texas. It's simply not against the law to carry a long gun. There's no section of the penal code that says it's not against the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:46:19 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The existing law says it is legal to open carry a rifle. Voting to convict would be nullifying that law. Is that what you want, or do you want juries to follow the law? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ill nullify the shit out of whatever I want. Laws against nullification will be nullified as well. A clarification, please. In Texas it is legal for a person to open carry a rifle. If a person was on a jury and a guy had been charged with Disorderly Conduct for carrying a rifle openly, are you saying that a juror would be okay to say, "I don't care what the law says, I don't like people carrying those evil assault guns, and I believe he is guilty!" And vote for a conviction? Is that what you want? Or do you want jurors to follow the law? Jury nullification does not provide for jurors creating laws, just for nullifying existing laws. The existing law says it is legal to open carry a rifle. Voting to convict would be nullifying that law. Is that what you want, or do you want juries to follow the law? Then appeal the conviction
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:49:00 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Equal protection, you mean like how some folks DON'T get arrested for possessing a 30rd magazine because they are for the right political dickhead, and others lose their rights for the same thing. THAT's what you worry about? Laughable, imo. TXL Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How so? If you don't intuitively understand that refusing to enforce the law on the books is changing the law on the books, I don't know what to tell you. It's not changing the law on the books. It's choosing not to apply it, on an ad hoc basis, and is a sure way to run afoul of the equal protection of law. Equal protection, you mean like how some folks DON'T get arrested for possessing a 30rd magazine because they are for the right political dickhead, and others lose their rights for the same thing. THAT's what you worry about? Laughable, imo. TXL Well, first that's not an equal protection issue, and second, no, I'm not really worried about it, because I'm not on the shit end of the stick. I am, however, concerned about it, because I believe in justice and fair play, but hey, that's just me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:49:07 AM EDT
[#36]
That's an excellent point. I was just looking at a website of JN examples and found some pertaining to the Salem Witch trials.
Quote HistoryThe Salem Witch Trials began in 1692. After a 100 percent conviction rate and the execution of 33 witches, in 1693, juries decided the court of Oyer and Terminer had gone too far. The next 52 trials ended in hung juries or acquittals. Frustrated, prosecutors ceased bringing cases to trial. Juries made it impossible to kill witches in Salem.
You just ruined O_P's day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:51:30 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you not see that in the first case, a majority of the people have voted in Representatives to write laws, and in the second case, one person basically nullifies the will of the majority of the voters? Who do we want controlling the laws in a free society, the majority of the voters, or one person on a jury? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No. It is the job of the state Legislature (elected by the people) to write laws. If the people do not like those laws, they can elect different legislators to write better laws. It is not the duty of a jury to make up new laws or ignore laws that have been legally passed by the legislature use whatever legal means available to oppose them. Jury nullification is but one of those legal means. FIFY Do you not see that in the first case, a majority of the people have voted in Representatives to write laws, and in the second case, one person basically nullifies the will of the majority of the voters? Who do we want controlling the laws in a free society, the majority of the voters, or one person on a jury? Wait, you are so old you voted for the Reps. Who made the asinine open carry laws in effect today in Texas? Your point is not valid... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 9:57:07 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, first that's not an equal protection issue, and second, no, I'm not really worried about it, because I'm not on the shit end of the stick. I am, however, concerned about it, because I believe in justice and fair play, but hey, that's just me. Abusis malum prohibitum. Jury nullification is an important power, and it's good that we have it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 10:02:04 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The purpose of a jury is to judge whether the facts prove that the law has been broken. No. It is the job of the state Legislature (elected by the people) to write laws. If the people do not like those laws, they can elect different legislators to write better laws. It is not the duty of a jury to make up new laws or ignore laws that have been legally passed by the legislature. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A jury is of no use if they are constrained to follow in lockstep with the judge's interpretation of the law. After all, if they are simply a rubber stamp for the court, why bother to have a jury at all? The purpose of a jury is to judge whether the facts prove that the law has been broken. Is it not better to place the jury in a position where they can judge both the facts and the law? No. It is the job of the state Legislature (elected by the people) to write laws. If the people do not like those laws, they can elect different legislators to write better laws. It is not the duty of a jury to make up new laws or ignore laws that have been legally passed by the legislature. So, Texas turns blue. They pass laws like chicago, ny or dc, it's not the OBLIGATION of the citizen to protect their fellow citizens from tryanny. Think you are on the wrong side of this one. TXL ETA, so, you would support the fugitive slave return act? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 10:30:23 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is always the possibility of jury nullification. The ultimate authority on whether or not somebody is guilty is a jury of his peers. If they feel he did not commit a crime, for whatever reason, then so be it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 10:32:04 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There is always the possibility of jury nullification. The ultimate authority on whether or not somebody is guilty is a jury of his peers. If they feel he did not commit a crime, for whatever reason, then so be it. Lawyers and judges hate that they can't control the jury's vote sometimes. That's because they can prove OJ did it and he can still walk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 10:32:31 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you don't intuitively understand that refusing to enforce the law on the books is changing the law on the books, I don't know what to tell you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How so? If you don't intuitively understand that refusing to enforce the law on the books is changing the law on the books, I don't know what to tell you. If you don't intuitively understand that the reason we have jury nullification is that the law can not possibly cover all situations, I don't know what to tell you. If someone tells the defendant that they (the assailant) said they're going to kill my family but the defendant drives him off and he says "I'll be back" while running away, and the defendant shoots him in the back of the head, that is murder under the law. However, if there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the assailant did indeed threaten to come back I'd nullify in a heartbeat. I'm sure there are countless other scenarios that could be brought up, some even historical. No written law can cover all circumstances. To attempt to make it do so is an exercise in foolishness. The legal system was once known as the justice system, the day-to-day name has changed amongst the citizenry for obvious reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 10:34:02 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you don't intuitively understand that the reason we have jury nullification is that the law can not possibly cover all situations, I don't know what to tell you. If someone tells the defendant that they (the assailant) said they're going to kill my family but the defendant drives him off and he says "I'll be back" while running away, and the defendant shoots him in the back of the head, that is murder under the law. However, if there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the assailant did indeed threaten to come back I'd nullify in a heartbeat. I'm sure there are countless other scenarios that could be brought up, some even historical. No written law can cover all circumstances. To attempt to make it do so is an exercise in foolishness. The legal system was once known as the justice system, the day-to-day name has changed amongst the citizenry for obvious reasons. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How so? If you don't intuitively understand that refusing to enforce the law on the books is changing the law on the books, I don't know what to tell you. If you don't intuitively understand that the reason we have jury nullification is that the law can not possibly cover all situations, I don't know what to tell you. If someone tells the defendant that they (the assailant) said they're going to kill my family but the defendant drives him off and he says "I'll be back" while running away, and the defendant shoots him in the back of the head, that is murder under the law. However, if there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the assailant did indeed threaten to come back I'd nullify in a heartbeat. I'm sure there are countless other scenarios that could be brought up, some even historical. No written law can cover all circumstances. To attempt to make it do so is an exercise in foolishness. The legal system was once known as the justice system, the day-to-day name has changed amongst the citizenry for obvious reasons. I don't know what would give you that idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 10:40:05 AM EDT
[#44]
You have a sworn duty to uphold the law. If taking an oath actually means something to you, then follow the law. If you can't, then tell the judge during jury selection that you cannot follow the law--not everyone is competent to serve on a jury.
Jury nullification simply means you have no integrity. It is not the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 10:43:18 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course they're going to tell you that, but it's bs. Can't have the commoners flexing any muscle when it comes to the government, so it's better to tell them they can't do it. Most people will quietly go along, because they don't know any better. You are not the legislature--as a juror, you were never voted into office to change the law. You take an oath as a juror to uphold the law and follow the Court's instructions. If you can't, then let the judge or attorney's know. You will be excused from service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 10:45:39 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jury nullification does not provide for jurors creating laws, just for nullifying existing laws. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ill nullify the shit out of whatever I want. Laws against nullification will be nullified as well. A clarification, please. In Texas it is legal for a person to open carry a rifle. If a person was on a jury and a guy had been charged with Disorderly Conduct for carrying a rifle openly, are you saying that a juror would be okay to say, "I don't care what the law says, I don't like people carrying those evil assault guns, and I believe he is guilty!" And vote for a conviction? Is that what you want? Or do you want jurors to follow the law?
Jury nullification does not provide for jurors creating laws, just for nullifying existing laws. BS. It works both ways. Jurors are the finders of fact. Judges are the finders of law. You do your job. Let the judge do his. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 10:46:52 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are just being obstinate. The law which makes openly carrying a pistol illegal, specifically exempts rifles or shotguns. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Texas has a law specifically giving permission to do something, rather than restricting something? What is the text of this law? You are just being obstinate. The law which makes openly carrying a pistol illegal, specifically exempts rifles or shotguns. Meh I would nullify that unconstitutional law as well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 10:51:32 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BS. It works both ways. Jurors are the finders of fact. Judges are the finders of law. You do your job. Let the judge do his. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ill nullify the shit out of whatever I want. Laws against nullification will be nullified as well. A clarification, please. In Texas it is legal for a person to open carry a rifle. If a person was on a jury and a guy had been charged with Disorderly Conduct for carrying a rifle openly, are you saying that a juror would be okay to say, "I don't care what the law says, I don't like people carrying those evil assault guns, and I believe he is guilty!" And vote for a conviction? Is that what you want? Or do you want jurors to follow the law?
Jury nullification does not provide for jurors creating laws, just for nullifying existing laws. BS. It works both ways. Jurors are the finders of fact. Judges are the finders of law. You do your job. Let the judge do his. Lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 10:56:01 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. Ok. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 11:01:44 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry to see some of the things being said here.
I suppose NFA/GCA/Hughes are just laws and must be obeyed. A renewed '94AWB would be the law of the land and we would be obligated to obey it. Soap box, ballot box, jury box. Then cartridge box. The lesson of Lexington and Concord needs to be revisited, it seems. Well said. Many members need to study and read up on jury nullification. If anyone faces firearms related charges on a case that I am serving as a juror, my standard will be the law of the land "The 2nd Amendment", all other laws related to firearms I take issue with and question as enforceable. (Maybe a felon losing their right to own firearms is acceptable, but just maybe not certain). |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
