While I was sitting in the courtroom today, waiting for my turn in front of the judge and consul, my ears perked up as one potential juror was being questioned by the judge.

The judge asked this particular potential juror "Would you follow the law as I have explained it to you even if you did not believe in it or feel that it is fair?"

This juror said (as best as I could hear the old guy) "The law is passed by human beings and so there must always be a human element in interpreting these laws. As I am a human myself, I must then consider if one if these laws in particular is fair and just. If I do not believe that the law is fair and just, then I would not be able to follow your instructions."

The judge paused a moment to digest this, then said, "Thank you for your candor and honesty in this matter and the court thanks you for your time. You are excused from service in this particular court."

And he was sent on his way......



efxguy

its fucking bullshit that he gets dismissed over that.  

eta - I would lie if I was ever asked that question, the duty to protect our fellow citizens from an overbearing government far outweighs lying under oath.

frankly i think thats how the law should work..

man rapes a kid.. dad murders the raper.. man charged with 1st degree murder. under the definition of the law, he's guilty..

but all things being as stated.. there is no way i'm gonna find him guilty....

Quoted: frankly i think thats how the law should work.. man rapes a kid.. dad murders the raper.. man charged with 1st degree murder. under the definition of the law, he's guilty.. but all things being as stated.. there is no way i'm gonna find him guilty....

than the law is flawed..

Quoted: Quoted: frankly i think thats how the law should work.. man rapes a kid.. dad murders the raper.. man charged with 1st degree murder. under the definition of the law, he's guilty.. but all things being as stated.. there is no way i'm gonna find him guilty.... than the law is flawed..

and its the jury's duty to judge the law and how its applied.

Quoted: This juror said (as best as I could hear the old guy) "The law is passed by human beings and so there must always be a human element in interpreting these laws. As I am a human myself, I must then consider if one if these laws in particular is fair and just. If I do not believe that the law is fair and just, then I would not be able to follow your instructions." efxguy

Eh......

And what if said juror is a druggie and therefore doesnt like drug laws and someone comes under trial for a drug-related case?  He's obviously going to think that drug laws arent fair and just and could make his decision based on that.

The way he worded it, isnt skewed.

What you witnessed was NOT jury nulification.
You witnessed a direct slap in the face of the constitution!
It is every jurors right to decide not only guilty not guilty but the validity of the law as it is being used in the specific case

The juror is supposed to have far more power than the judge

Quoted: frankly i think thats how the law should work.. man rapes a kid.. dad murders the raper.. man charged with 1st degree murder. under the definition of the law, he's guilty.. but all things being as stated.. there is no way i'm gonna find him guilty....

Temporary insanity and a slew of other things come into play into that too though.  But your point has been made.

Jury Nullification
Why you should know what it is
By Russ Emal (with a little assistance from the Internet)
Is it true or false that when you sit on a jury, you may vote on the verdict according to your own conscience. "True", you say, but then why do most judges tell you that you may consider "only the facts" and that you are not to let your conscience, opinion of the law, or the motives of the defendant affect your decision?
In a trial by jury, the judge's job is to referee the trial and provide neutral legal advice to the jury, beginning with a full and truthful explanation of a juror's rights and responsibilities.

But judges rarely "fully inform" jurors of their rights, especially their power to judge the law itself and to vote on the verdict according to conscience. Instead, they end up assisting the prosecution by dismissing any prospective juror who will admit to knowing about this right, starting with anyone who also admits having qualms with any specific law.

In fact, if you have doubts about the fairness of a law, you have the right and obligation to find someone innocent even though they have actually broken the law! John Adams, our second president, had this to say about the juror: "It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

It was normal procedure in the early days of our country to inform juries of their right to judge the law and the defendant. And if the judge didn't tell them, the defense attorney very often would. The nation's Founders understood that trials by juries of ordinary citizens, fully informed of their powers as jurors, would confine the government to its proper role as the servant, not the master, of the people.

It was our Constitution that gave us the foundation that enables us to remain a democracy. The Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power Ñ representatives, senate, executive, judges and jury. Before a law gains the power to punish that law must first pass the test of each constitutionally guaranteed authority.

"Jury nullification of law", as it is sometimes called, is a traditional American right defended by the Founding Fathers. Those patriots intended that the jury serve as one of the tests a law must pass through before it assumes enough popular authority to be enforced. Our constitutional designers saw to it that each enactment of law must pass the scrutiny of these tribunals before it gains the authority to punish those who choose to violate any written law. Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

Four decades before Jefferson spoke these words, a jury had established freedom of the press in the colonies by finding John Peter Zenger not guilty of seditious libel. He had been arrested and charged for printing critical Ñ but true Ñ news stories about the Governor of New York Colony. "Truth is no defense", the court told the jury! But the jury decided to reject bad law, and acquitted.

Why? Because defense attorney Andrew Hamilton informed the jury of its rights: he related the story of William Penn's trial Ñ of the courageous London jury which refused to find him guilty of preaching Quaker religious doctrine (at that time an illegal religion). His jurors stood by their verdict even though held without food, water, or toilet facilities for four days. The jurors were fined and imprisoned for refusing to convict William Penn Ñ until England's highest court acknowledged their right to reject both law and fact and to find a verdict according to conscience. It was exercise of that right in Penn's trial which eventually led to recognition of free speech, freedom of religion, and of peaceable assembly as individual rights.

American colonial juries regularly thwarted bad law sent over from mother England. Britain then retaliated by restricting both trial by jury and other rights which juries had won or protected. Result? The Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution!

Afterwards, to forever protect all the individual rights they'd fought for from future attacks by government, the Founders of these United States in three places included trial by jury Ñ meaning tough, fully informed juries Ñ in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

"Bad law" Ñ special-interest legislation which tramples our rights Ñ is no longer sent here from Britain. But our own legislatures keep us well supplied...That is why today, more than ever, we need juries to protect us!

Even though it was once the written law, would you vote to convict an escaped slave from the south, return him to his "Master" and to then be punished, maybe by inflecting torture and disfigurement to that escaped slave? Your answer is hopefully "NO!" But, at one time that was the law. How about burning a witch? Once too that was the law, a bad law and one that should not to be acted upon by our juries. If these laws were again passed today, how should you vote if on that trial's jury?

"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty." (1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267)

Despite the courts' refusal to inform jurors of their historical veto power, jury nullification in liquor law trials was a major contributing factor in ending alcohol prohibition. (Today in Kentucky jurors often refuse to convict under the marijuana prohibition laws.)

Fewer incidence of jury veto actions occurred as time increased after the courts began concealing jurors' rights from American citizens and falsely instructing them that they may consider only the facts as admitted by the court. Researchers in 1966 found that jury nullification occurred only 8.8 percent of the time between 1954 and 1958, and suggested that "one reason why the jury exercises its very real power [to nullify] so sparingly is because it is officially told it has none." (California's charge to the jury in criminal cases is typical: "It becomes my duty as judge to instruct you concerning the law applicable to this case, and it is your duty as jurors to follow the law as I shall state it to you ... You are to be governed solely by the evidence introduced in this trial and the law as stated to you by me.") Today no officer of the court is allowed to tell the jury of their veto power.

To better explain to prospective jurors their rights, an explanation that is not forthcoming from our courts judges, an organization called the Fully Informed Jury Association has been established. "FIJA" is a national jury-education organization which both educates juries and promotes laws to require that judges resume telling trial jurors "the whole truth" about their rights, or at least to allow lawyers to tell them. FIJA believes "liberty and justice for all" won't return to America until the citizens are again fully informed of their power as jurors, and routinely put it to good use.

About 18 months ago, armed with a number of pamphlets explaining the importance to each of us in having the courts fully inform juries of their rights, I stood in the Mendocino County Courthouse. I had been talking about this issue, with courthouse visitors when I was "invited" into Judge James Luther's courtroom by two of his bailiffs. Judge Luther, showed me how in general our courts have eroded. I was told to stop talking to my fellow citizens about their constitutional rights. Their right to understand a jury's role in the court procedure. I was told to stop or be arrested for jury tampering.

We can only speculate on why there is a general distrust by judges. A distrust of our citizen jurys to decide on the fairness of laws that are often enacted by self-serving legislators? Disrespect for the idea of government "of, by, and for the people"? Unwillingness to part with their power? Ignorance of all the rights and powers that trial jurors necessarily acquire upon assuming the responsibility of judging a case? Actual concern that trial jurors might "misuse" their power if told about it? How can people get fair trials if the jurors are told they can't use their consciences?

If jurors were supposed to judge "only the facts", their job could be done by computer. It is precisely because people have feelings, opinions, wisdom, experience, and conscience that we depend upon jurors, not upon machines, to judge court cases.

Why is so little known about what is now called "jury nullification"? In the late 1800's, a number of powerful special-interest groups (not unlike many we have with us today) inspired a series of judicial decisions which tried to limit jury rights. While no court has yet dared to deny that juries can "nullify" or "veto" a law, or can bring in a "general verdict", they have held that jurors need not be told about these rights!

However, jury veto power is still recognized. In 1972 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trial jury has an "...unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law (473F 2dl 113)

Today thousands of harmless citizens are in prison only because their trial juries were not fully informed, and the U.S. now leads the world in percent of population behind bars! More prisons are being built than ever before for those whose "crime" effects no one but themselves.

We need to be wary and/or critical of any proposals to "streamline" the jury system, or to create jurisdictions or regulations which "do not require" trial by jury (two of the means by which your power as a juror is stolen!) We now hear about plans to allow a court to find a person guilty of a crime with less then a 12-0 vote

Quoted: Quoted: This juror said (as best as I could hear the old guy) "The law is passed by human beings and so there must always be a human element in interpreting these laws. As I am a human myself, I must then consider if one if these laws in particular is fair and just. If I do not believe that the law is fair and just, then I would not be able to follow your instructions." efxguy Eh...... And what if said juror is a druggie and therefore doesnt like drug laws and someone comes under trial for a drug-related case?  He's obviously going to think that drug laws arent fair and just and could make his decision based on that. The way he worded it, isnt skewed.

It's his right as a juror to decide such, based on his experiences.

That's the point of jury nullification. It's the true last line of defense against unjust and/or unpopular laws.

It's a pity that so many judges find jury nullification to be an affront to their 'authority' and go out of their way to dismiss jurors who know what it is, and deny other jurors that knowledge in the first place.

decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.

We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision. U.S. vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969).[1]

Nevertheless, in upholding the refusal to permit the jury to be so instructed, the Court held that:

…by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed. Id.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This juror said (as best as I could hear the old guy) "The law is passed by human beings and so there must always be a human element in interpreting these laws. As I am a human myself, I must then consider if one if these laws in particular is fair and just. If I do not believe that the law is fair and just, then I would not be able to follow your instructions." efxguy Eh...... And what if said juror is a druggie and therefore doesnt like drug laws and someone comes under trial for a drug-related case?  He's obviously going to think that drug laws arent fair and just and could make his decision based on that. The way he worded it, isnt skewed. It's his right as a juror to decide such, based on his experiences. That's the point of jury nullification. It's the true last line of defense against unjust and/or unpopular laws. It's a pity that so many judges find jury nullification to be an affront to their 'authority' and go out of their way to dismiss jurors who know what it is, and deny other jurors that knowledge in the first place.

*shrug*

I would have objected to his dismissal and have an issue for appeal...

I wonder how many of the guys that applauded this, bitch about OJ Simpson?

Quoted: I wonder how many of the guys that applauded this, bitch about OJ Simpson?

I wonder that too.


OJ got his day(s) in court and a jury found him not guilty....period.

Sure, I think he did it, as do most people. But the jury found him not guilty, so he walks...thats just the way it goes.

If it was your hide on the line, you would want the same opportunity.

This is really the only logical solution. It's simply stupid to expect jurors to be entirely unemotional, detached observers. We all have opinions and morals to stand by. If I was a juror in a trial involving an ounce of pot and a guilty verdict would result in a 20 year mandatory sentence I would vote not guilty regardless of the evidence.

The soul of the juror is as sure a check on the law as the second amendment.

That was not jury nullification.

Quoted: Quoted: What you witnessed was NOT jury nulification. You witnessed a direct slap in the face of the constitution! It is every jurors right to decide not only guilty not guilty but the validity of the law as it is being used in the specific case The juror is supposed to have far more power than the judge Just a question, if I may. I'm not supporting JN or not, just interested. You say it is a "direct slap in the face of the constitution".  Just where does the Constitution address JN, please? Just curious.

I suppose it could be seen as denying the right to trial by a jury of your peers. It's a stretch, I know.
Imagine a case where a man's 15 year old daughter was raped and he killed the rapist and goes to trial for murder. I'd imagine the prosecutor and the judge are going to endeavor to make sure there aren't any men with 15 year old daughters on the jury.

Not jury notification.

Quoted: Quoted: What you witnessed was NOT jury nulification. You witnessed a direct slap in the face of the constitution! It is every jurors right to decide not only guilty not guilty but the validity of the law as it is being used in the specific case The juror is supposed to have far more power than the judge Just a question, if I may. I'm not supporting JN or not, just interested. You say it is a "direct slap in the face of the constitution".  Just where does the Constitution address JN, please? Just curious.

Old_Painless,
You are correct there is nothing specific about JN in the constitustion.
A better statement would have been.
"Dismissing jurors based on their potential to engage in JN is in direct conflict with the intent of 6th and 14th amendment"


The whole point of a jury is for a person to be judged by his peers, I know that sometimes JN has had evil results ie violence against blacks* unpunished.

* If the jury makeup was proper this would not have occured, A jury should consist of people in similar demographics to both the accused and victim and society as a whole.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: frankly i think thats how the law should work.. man rapes a kid.. dad murders the raper.. man charged with 1st degree murder. under the definition of the law, he's guilty.. but all things being as stated.. there is no way i'm gonna find him guilty.... than the law is flawed.. and its the jury's duty to judge the law and how its applied.

Juries don't make or interpret law, they judge facts and follow the law as instructed by the judge.

Quoted: Just remember that Jury nullification has a reverse side.  It's a two-edged sword.

Exactly.  This is not the way people fantasize about it in their "gun owner kills daughter's rapist" daydreams.  

In reality, you end up with an undeucated juror that has little understanding of the law or has a personal bias against a particular race, sex, orientation, etc and that juror then acts based on their bias or lack of knowledge about the subject at hand.  


It ends up with a jury that lets a guilty suspect walk free because of their failure to understand the how and why of the laws that their elected representatives passed.  Very Very rarely is the law unjust...there is usually a way around it other than nullification if you are truly justified.

Quoted: Just remember that Jury nullification has a reverse side.  It's a two-edged sword.

Yep, it allowed OJ to go free.

I can live with that for the freedom that my service represented.

Better one guilty man goes free.....


TXL

The trial I sat on was very similar.  When asked if I could consider all possible sentencing, I responded truthfully - yes.  I was not asked how likely I would consider the lightest possible sentencing for a gang banger, heroin dealing, rapist, who put a gun to his underage hostage/girlfriend.

I was the only member of the Jury who was not in favor of probation - sometimes it goes the wrong way.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: frankly i think thats how the law should work.. man rapes a kid.. dad murders the raper.. man charged with 1st degree murder. under the definition of the law, he's guilty.. but all things being as stated.. there is no way i'm gonna find him guilty.... than the law is flawed.. and its the jury's duty to judge the law and how its applied. Juries don't make or interpret law, they judge facts and follow the law as instructed by the judge.

Hook line and sinker.

Read some history.

TXL

Quoted: Quoted: Just remember that Jury nullification has a reverse side.  It's a two-edged sword. Exactly.  This is not the way people fantasize about it in their "gun owner kills daughter's rapist" daydreams.   In reality, you end up with an undeucated juror that has little understanding of the law or has a personal bias against a particular race, sex, orientation, etc and that juror then acts based on their bias or lack of knowledge about the subject at hand.   It ends up with a jury that lets a guilty suspect walk free because of their failure to understand the how and why of the laws that their elected representatives passed.  Very Very rarely is the law unjust...there is usually a way around it other than nullification if you are truly justified.

Coming from you, I'd expect nothing less.....

TXL

Thank you for this.  I just copied the whole thing and sent ti to every e-mail I have in my address book because I think it is to important and to many people don't know about it.

Quoted: Jury Nullification Why you should know what it is By Russ Emal (with a little assistance from the Internet) Is it true or false that when you sit on a jury, you may vote on the verdict according to your own conscience. "True", you say, but then why do most judges tell you that you may consider "only the facts" and that you are not to let your conscience, opinion of the law, or the motives of the defendant affect your decision?

Quoted: Not jury notification.

True, this was not in actuality, JN. It was, in fact, the courts response to the statement of a potential juror that HE believes in JN and was willing to exercise that right despite the instructions from the judge.

And the court's response was to dismiss that candidate from service in that court.  Perhaps another judge would have decided differently, or not.

The point of my initial post was that JN in action should be a stealth action, not a platform to declare your beliefs upon interview.

In so doing, you will never have the opportunity to exercise your right of Jury Nullification of Law.

efxguy

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: frankly i think thats how the law should work.. man rapes a kid.. dad murders the raper.. man charged with 1st degree murder. under the definition of the law, he's guilty.. but all things being as stated.. there is no way i'm gonna find him guilty.... than the law is flawed.. and its the jury's duty to judge the law and how its applied. Juries don't make or interpret law, they judge facts and follow the law as instructed by the judge.

never mind.



i lose a little more faith every day when i read something like that ^ from someone on a firearms board.

Quoted: The point of my initial post was that JN in action should be a stealth action, not a platform to declare your beliefs upon interview. In so doing, you will never have the opportunity to exercise your right of Jury Nullification of Law.

Funny, but the one time I had to report for jury duty the question of following the judge's instructions was never asked, so it wasn't an issue.  I still didn't make it through the voir dire process, though - the prosecutor recognized me  since I'd worked on his election campaign, so I got excused.

ETA: if the question were asked by the judge I would have to lie by omission.

Quoted: Quoted: Just remember that Jury nullification has a reverse side.  It's a two-edged sword. Exactly.  This is not the way people fantasize about it in their "gun owner kills daughter's rapist" daydreams.   In reality, you end up with an undeucated juror that has little understanding of the law or has a personal bias against a particular race, sex, orientation, etc and that juror then acts based on their bias or lack of knowledge about the subject at hand.   It ends up with a jury that lets a guilty suspect walk free because of their failure to understand the how and why of the laws that their elected representatives passed.  Very Very rarely is the law unjust...there is usually a way around it other than nullification if you are truly justified.

When a law is passed by 51% of the votes, 49% don't agree with it.

I find it disturbing when the SC makes a 5-4 decision.  For whatever reason, almost half the judges find the ruling wrong.  These are the most knowledgeable people on the law and even they cannot come to a consensus.  Which means everything is open to interpretation all the time.

Every time a ruling is overturned, I wonder how many weren’t because no one bothered to fight to the next level.  It’s pretty obvious that the laws a malleable just by looking at the all the over ruling.  

Why can’t the juries exercise the same right?

Quoted: Why can’t the juries exercise the same right?

Us mere plebes cannot be trusted with power.

Quoted: Quoted: This juror said (as best as I could hear the old guy) "The law is passed by human beings and so there must always be a human element in interpreting these laws. As I am a human myself, I must then consider if one if these laws in particular is fair and just. If I do not believe that the law is fair and just, then I would not be able to follow your instructions." efxguy Eh...... And what if said juror is a druggie and therefore doesnt like drug laws and someone comes under trial for a drug-related case?  He's obviously going to think that drug laws arent fair and just and could make his decision based on that. The way he worded it, isnt skewed.

That is why you are judged by 12 not 1.

Quoted: Better one guilty man goes free..... TXL

Better a dozen guilty men go free than an innocent man be convicted.

J

The whole purpose of a jury IS nullification.  When you think about it, if law was merely a technical decision of judging "just the facts" then the judge should be the one who makes the determination, or professional jurors, people with law degrees trained to understand the complexities of law and legal reasoning.  The reason we include 12 lay persons is not because they are best equipped to evaluate the facts against a background of complex legal rules, but because they are representative of us.  

Historically, the jury system was demanded by the English people in order to protect themselves against harsh and capricious laws promulgated by the crown.  For instance, there was a period where the English law had very strict requirements regarding the duty to retreat - such that self-defense wasn't possible unless there was absolutely no possibility of retreat.  The juries of the time, however, found all sorts of imaginary obstacles to retreat - hedgerow, ditches, and numerous other obstacles which prevented retreat.  Our founders inherited this tradition, and having their own bad experiences with the crown's laws made sury that juries and jury nullification were part of our system.

Would anyone here nullify a 922(o) case?