Posted: 1/20/2003 1:41:12 PM EDT
|
I saw a thread on juries the other day but can not find it now so I thought I would start a new one. I have an interesting pdf on my web page if you can call it that. But that is another story. You can find the pdf Jury nullification and the 2nd amendment in the legal folder at [url]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bcd27/[/url] I still believe that if I ever had to go to trial I could get a jury to acquit me, With the help of a good lawyer, of just about anything. They after all have probably had a bad experiences with the law. And a smooth talker can get them to equate their experience with mine. That is why I go to jury duty when I am called. All be it I have only been called once. And did not get to sit on one. I will go every time in the hope that I will eventually get to sit and overturn some asinine law. Hopefully I wont have to hang a jury to do it. |
|
In every jury trial I have seen, the jurors "swear to uphold the law as the judge instructs it" or something to that effect. The jury's role is to decide facts, not to disregard the law, at least as current cases that I am aware of read it. I really have no great personal interest in this issue, to be honest, but you certainly are committing perjury by taking a juror's oath and then committing "jury nullification." If you say anything to suggest that you would engage in such conduct you will get tossed out of the jury pool for cause. Don't get me wrong, if you want to lie and commit a crime to get on the jury and then get a guilty person off the hook because you think the law is stupid, that's between you and your conscience. I sincerely doubt that you can get a jury to acquit you of just about anything through jury nullification. A good prosecutor will get rid of jurors who are going to find you not guilty only because they have an axe to grind with the system. |
|
A jury panel is chosen in order to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused party. It is not to determine the "justness" of a particular law. If it's your intent to act in a dishonest, criminal matter and lie your way onto a jury, diregard your oath, and let a guilty person go free, don't get upset when the other members of the jury fry your ass for it. Your assumption that most folks have had negative experiences with the law in in error. |
|
From the responses so far I can only assume no one other than The beer slayer has read anything of our judicial history, in this country. We are the government and it is up to use to keep it with in the bounds of the constitution. For a hypothetical, If I was seated on a jury, to judge a man or woman for owning an ar with preban fetchers. And that was their only crime I would not convict. I do not believe the law is with in the boundaries of the constitution. It would be my responsibility to see that an unjust law was nullified. And it would be yours too. If we the people do not stand up to tyranny in any form we have subjugated ourselves. |
|
we had an interesting case in birmingham last year. a shopkeeper had been robbed repeatdly. he catches a guy stealing a suit from a rack. Guy runs out the door. Shopkeeper chases him and shoots him i the ass. Kid has a shoplifting and burglary record. Shop owner is arrested and charged with attempted murder. Our local prosecuter wanted to crucify this shop owner. The jury found him not guilty and further had a statement added into the court record that they felt his protection of life and property was justified. I don't think shooting a kid in the back for a 30.00 denim suit is justifiable. But i also can understabd the frustration of watching your livelyhood stolen from you everyday. I doubt this store will ever be robbed again. mike |
|
Ok here is the oath I would have to take to sit on a jury in Michigan. "Each of you do solemnly swear that, in this action now before the court, you will justly decide the questions submitted to you, that, unless you are discharged by the court from further deliberation, you will render a true verdict, and that you will render your verdict only on the evidence introduced and in accordance with the instructions of the court, so help you God." If you do not wish to take an "oath," you may substitute "affirm" for "swear" and delete "so help you God." The oath or affirmation is not to be taken lightly or soon forgotten. You have given your word that you will reach your verdict solely upon evidence and upon the judge’s instructions on the law to be applied. You must not consider any other instructions. Back to my hypothetical. If the court does not prove to me that the assault weapons ban of 1994 is constitutional. Howe would I be breaking my oath? All I would need is the defense lawyer to say they do not believe the law to be constitutional. Even if the attorney did not mention this. And I went by the evidence submitted, would I not be committing treason for disregarding the constitution? |
|
Quoted: From the responses so far I can only assume no one other than The beer slayer has read anything of our judicial history, in this country. We are the government and it is up to use to keep it with in the bounds of the constitution. For a hypothetical, If I was seated on a jury, to judge a man or woman for owning an ar with preban fetchers. And that was their only crime I would not convict. I do not believe the law is with in the boundaries of the constitution. It would be my responsibility to see that an unjust law was nullified. And it would be yours too. If we the people do not stand up to tyranny in any form we have subjugated ourselves. |
|
Quoted: Back to my hypothetical. If the court does not prove to me that the assault weapons ban of 1994 is constitutional. Howe would I be breaking my oath? All I would need is the defense lawyer to say they do not believe the law to be constitutional. Even if the attorney did not mention this. And I went by the evidence submitted, would I not be committing treason for disregarding the constitution? The Founding Fathers, wrote, reviewed, and ratified the Constitution. It divides the governmental powers. The legislature, well legislates, they pass laws etc. The Chief Executive get to sign or veto laws. If he vetoes a law the Legislature can ovveride the veto if it has enough votes. The Supreme Court reviews case to see if the Constitution and laws were followed and properly applied. Justices are appointed by the Chief Exceutive and approved by the legislature. The Chief Executive, and members of the Legislature are elected by the people. Similar set ups also occur on the State level, with some variation. Trial Judges get to decide legal and procedural matters. Juries get to the "facts" of the case. In other words, if you respect the Constitution YOU won't try to usurp the roles that the Founding Fathers delegated to the Chief Executive, Legislature, or Judiciary. |
|
Quoted: Back to my hypothetical. If the court does not prove to me that the assault weapons ban of 1994 is constitutional. Howe would I be breaking my oath? All I would need is the defense lawyer to say they do not believe the law to be constitutional. Even if the attorney did not mention this. And I went by the evidence submitted, would I not be committing treason for disregarding the constitution? The only "questions" you would get are along the lines of (yeah I know I have simplified the law a little bit here, but it's getting late): 1-Did the prosecution establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed a rifle that had a magazine well, pistol grip, bayonet lug and folding stock? ______ yes ____ no if no then your verdict must be not guilty, please inform the bailif that you have reached a verdict if yes then contine to question 2 2-If yes did the defendant establish that the rifle was manufactured prior to such and such a date? _______ yes ______ no If yes then your verdict must be not guilty if no then your verdict must be guilty-please inform the bailiff that you have reached a decision. |
|
I would like to thank everyone for their posts so far. They have made me think a little deeper about the topic. If a law is passed, for example the AW ban, or the patriot act. But has not gone before the courts to determine if it is constitutional, how are we to find out if it is? Or is it up to the citizens to do the job of the court and strike down laws that they refuse to rule on, threw jury nullification? Their must be a way that an out dated law or corrupt one can be repealed, with out a congressional act. I believe it is threw our participation on juries. Otherwise any law that is passed must be obeyed, by the interpretation of the court. Which is not always elected. Most of our higher courts, in the federal system are appointed. When one person interprets a law that was written by many, often that law is misconstrued from its original intent. |
|
Jury nullification does nothing except for 1 person in 1 case. In the past jury nullification was used to keep people form going to jail that obviously committed the crime they were accused of. Think about the old South, and white males, then think why there were notorious cases of "Jury Nullificiation". Did that help or hurt "Justice". Yes in order for a law to be ruled Un-Constitutional someone has to be tried and convicted of it, then appeal to a next higher Court. Trial Courts very rarely make case law, and most don't want to. Then again both the Anti- and Pro- 2nd Amendment groups have tried to avoid having the Supreme Court rule on firearms realted cases. Both side are SCARED what the Court would rule. Both the NRA and HCI would rather live with the "system" in place today, rather than to risk a ruling tommorrow that rules against their interest. |
|
Quoted: The people vociferously opposed to the concept of Jury Nullification are those with a stake in the system, and thereby devoid of any moral authority to judge. A buddy of mine was on a jury and he and the other jurors decided to find the defendant guilty of only committing Driving while ability impaired (a traffic violation) instead of driving while intoxicated ( a misdemeanor) because there was no evidence of a breathalyzer test of the defendant's blood level. Of course they did not follow the judge's instruction when taking that into consideration. What they didn't know (but I am sure was the case) was that there were no test results because the defendant had refused the test AND he had at least one previous driving while intoxicated conviction within the past ten years-so they made sure that a drunk would be able to get back on the road much more quickly by deciding to do what they wanted. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Back to my hypothetical. If the court does not prove to me that the assault weapons ban of 1994 is constitutional. Howe would I be breaking my oath? All I would need is the defense lawyer to say they do not believe the law to be constitutional. Even if the attorney did not mention this. And I went by the evidence submitted, would I not be committing treason for disregarding the constitution? The Founding Fathers, wrote, reviewed, and ratified the Constitution. It divides the governmental powers. The legislature, well legislates, they pass laws etc. The Chief Executive get to sign or veto laws. If he vetoes a law the Legislature can ovveride the veto if it has enough votes. The Supreme Court reviews case to see if the Constitution and laws were followed and properly applied. Justices are appointed by the Chief Exceutive and approved by the legislature. The Chief Executive, and members of the Legislature are elected by the people. Similar set ups also occur on the State level, with some variation. Trial Judges get to decide legal and procedural matters. Juries get to the "facts" of the case. In other words, if you respect the Constitution YOU won't try to usurp the roles that the Founding Fathers delegated to the Chief Executive, Legislature, or Judiciary. you haven't read much history have you jury nullification was supposed to be part of the system ever hear of william penn ? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: The people vociferously opposed to the concept of Jury Nullification are those with a stake in the system, and thereby devoid of any moral authority to judge. A buddy of mine was on a jury and he and the other jurors decided to find the defendant guilty of only committing Driving while ability impaired (a traffic violation) instead of driving while intoxicated ( a misdemeanor) because there was no evidence of a breathalyzer test of the defendant's blood level. Of course they did not follow the judge's instruction when taking that into consideration. What they didn't know (but I am sure was the case) was that there were no test results because the defendant had refused the test AND he had at least one previous driving while intoxicated conviction within the past ten years-so they made sure that a drunk would be able to get back on the road much more quickly by deciding to do what they wanted. Loose associating this morning? |
|
Quoted: I saw a thread on juries the other day but can not find it now so I thought I would start a new one. I have an interesting pdf on my web page if you can call it that. But that is another story. You can find the pdf Jury nullification and the 2nd amendment in the legal folder at [url]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bcd27/[/url] [red]I still believe that if I ever had to go to trial I could get a jury to acquit me, With the help of a good lawyer, of just about anything.[/red] They after all have probably had a bad experiences with the law. And a smooth talker can get them to equate their experience with mine. That is why I go to jury duty when I am called. All be it I have only been called once. And did not get to sit on one. [red]I will go every time in the hope that I will eventually get to sit and overturn some asinine law.[/red] Hopefully I wont have to hang a jury to do it. Don't bet on it. Judges, (especially in federal court), tell the defense what they can, and cannot present for defense. Judges, in jury instructions specifically tell jurors they are to judge facts, not law. We are today governed by judical tyrants....... Depending on the jurisdiction if you try "and overturn some asinine law", you may wind up sitting in jail with the defendant..... |
|
I've been in 4 courtrooms as part of jury pools, 1 as witness, plus testifying before an ALJ in a license hearing. One of those judges and the ALJ I considered very competent. The rest of it was a zoo. Even making allowances for it's not a perfect system, there were major screwups. The judges in the criminal trials required people getting chairs, to swear that they remembered all the questions that had been put to the earlier 12 and alternates [many weren't being addressed at the time so had no idea they were supposed to be listening in detail]. There were people lying through their teeth to get off, and others lying through their teeth to get on. Some were near crazy, and some were just dumb. [Attorney: so where do you work? Juror: Uh, I wooork at the welFARE deportment. Attorney: Do you work for the county, the state, or the federal government? Juror: I theeenk is BOTH. Another good one is the judges who think that just because you can't be FIRED for going on jury duty, that after an expected 9 month absence for trial {like companies are stupid enough to explicitly say, "IF YOU ARE OUT MORE THAN TWO WEEKS, YOU'RE FIRED"), your boss won't have redesigned your job, given your work to someone else. I saw one woman swear she didn't know enough English to understand what's going on, then when the judge asks her what she did, it turned out she just graduated with an AA degree. Effectively, some judges have driven jury nullification underground, by making it unmentionable. But it exists anyway. |
|
Quoted: you haven't read much history have you jury nullification was supposed to be part of the system ever hear of william penn ? Yes plenty. Jury nullification was most used by white Jurors in the South after the Civil War. Many places boasted that they had never had a jury convict a white person of killing an African-American. Well if we can blow off a little thing like murder, that's a swell system. More recently activist have suggested jury nullification in ALL drug cases. Others have suggested, based on race, that no person of a certain race should EVER vote to convict a person of the same race NO MATTER WHAT THE CRIME. Does the term "slippery slope" mean anything? Where would it stop? I'm sure there would be people saying that Statutory Rape laws are Un-Constitutional. Isn't love the ultimate human expression. Isn't freedom of expresseion and the Right to privacy in the Constitution. That makes a mockery of "Justice" and makes a jury more like a lottery panel. Besides, I'm way more worried about the VICTIMS. Think about that. |
|
Quoted: Not making a judgement on jury nullification. Judges and lawyers hate it and try to keep it out at all cost because it takes power away from them and puts it in the hands of the people whom they do not trust to make the right decision. BING, BING, BING! We have a winner on Aisle Three. Now let the irrelevant anecdotal drivel begin. |
|
[b]The most quoted instruction empowering a jury to judge the law comes from a civil case. In a rare jury trial in the United States Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Jay, speaking for a unanimous Court, instructed the jury: "The facts comprehended in the case are agreed; the only point that remains, is to settle what is the law of the land arising from those facts; and on that point, it is proper, that the opinion of the court should be given. It is fortunate, on the present, as it must be on every occasion, to find the opinion of the court unanimous: we entertain no diversity of sentiment; and we have experienced no difficulty in uniting in the charge, which it is my province to deliver. "It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of fact; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision." Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794) Schnier v. People, 23 Ill. 17, 30 (1859), quoted in Howe, Juries as Judges of Criminal Law, 52 Harv. L.Rev. 582, 611 (1939): John Adams, who became the second U.S. President, in 1771 said of 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." Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Paine, 1789: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." [/b] Case closed...... [url]http://www.fija.org/[/url] |
|
Yes plenty. Jury nullification was most used by white Jurors in the South after the Civil War. Many places boasted that they had never had a jury convict a white person of killing an African-American. Well if we can blow off a little thing like murder, that's a swell system. That race card sure looks nice, but playing it doesn't change the fact that our judicial system was designed to include jury nullification. More recently activist have suggested jury nullification in ALL drug cases. Others have suggested, based on race, that no person of a certain race should EVER vote to convict a person of the same race NO MATTER WHAT THE CRIME. Does the term "slippery slope" mean anything? Where would it stop? I'm sure there would be people saying that Statutory Rape laws are Un-Constitutional. Isn't love the ultimate human expression. Isn't freedom of expresseion and the Right to privacy in the Constitution. [rolleyes] the slippery slope [/rolleyes]This is like the stale argument put on by anti-gunners when discussing concealed carry. "it'll be like the wild west with people blasting each other after car accidents" blah blah blah. It sounds like you're saying that people are too stupid to be trusted with the power of jury nullification. what's the alternative? to be ruled by judges who think they are prosecutors? no thank you. I'd rather have 1000 guilty men go free than one innocent man sent to jail. How about you? That makes a mockery of "Justice" and makes a jury more like a lottery panel. Besides, I'm way more worried about the VICTIMS. Think about that. |
|
Be careful what you wish for; you might get it. This business of jury nullification is fine if it gets yoou off the hook, HOWEVER, it can work in reverse. Suppose the prosecution puts on a very weak case, one that an impartial, fair jury would laugh at. Now suppose the defendant is unpopular, or damn well guilty of lots of crimes he has skated away from. What's to stop the jury from convicting him anyways, even though the charges brought before [i] them[/i] are a joke? Works both ways. |
|
Quoted: Yes plenty. Jury nullification was most used by white Jurors in the South after the Civil War. Many places boasted that they had never had a jury convict a white person of killing an African-American. Well if we can blow off a little thing like murder, that's a swell system. That race card sure looks nice, but playing it doesn't change the fact that our judicial system was designed to include jury nullification. Well, the race card doesn't look as nice when you take into account the Fugitive Slave Act. It's demise was the result of jury nullification. Similarly, it was one of the reasons Prohibition was repealed. |
|
Quoted: it takes 12 to convict only one to hang a jury (some would try to change this) which is why convictions of the innocent are [red]less likely[/red] than letting the guilty go free Less likely, yes. But still possible. Care to risk it??? (Emphasis in quote added--RAF) Besides, in my hypothetical. the accused was a BAD person who objectively deserved to be locked up. Jury just let the facts of the charge before them slide, and gave him what he had coming. [b]For their own safety[/b]. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: it takes 12 to convict only one to hang a jury (some would try to change this) which is why convictions of the innocent are [red]less likely[/red] than letting the guilty go free Less likely, yes. But still possible. Care to risk it??? (Emphasis in quote added--RAF) well if you're so disliked that 12 [i]randomly[/i] selected people unanimously agree that you're a pos and should fry, then I guess you're screwed. That this (probably uncommon) situation can arise doesn't convince me that jurors should be made by judges to swear that they'll consider only the facts of the case and not the sensibility of the law. |
|
Quoted: well if you're so disliked that 12 [i]randomly[/i] selected people unanimously agree that you're a pos and should fry, then I guess you're screwed. That this (probably uncommon) situation can arise doesn't convince me that jurors should be made by judges to swear that they'll consider only the facts of the case and not the sensibility of the law. I fully agree. My only point was that the sword can cut on the backstroke as well. Being [i]double-edged[/i]. |
|
Wow I go away to get some sleep, then go to work. The next thing I know a debate breaks out. So far it look close to 50% for 50% against jury nullification. That would not be to bad if this were a forum of soccer moms. But to see half of the members of pro 2nd amendment board give up their most direct influence on our government is very disheartening. once again I would like to thank everyone who has posted. At least each of you are prepared to exercise your 1st amendment rights. edited for spelling |
| Maryland and Indiana have laws on their books that state that the jury is the arbiter of not only guilt and innocence, but also of the law. Jury Nullification is legal in the fullest sense in those two states. Not that the judge and the lawyers tell anyone about it. If it is brought up at all, they get mighty PO'd. |
|
It always bothers me that we argue whether or not jury nullification exists or not when the larger problem is that juries are NOT randomly selected. I now predict someone will attempt to explain that allowing X strikes to both sides makes a jury more 'fair' while allowing no strikes does not. Remove the word random...or do it like it says. |
|
IIRC, some famous jurist once said something like "A law that is repugnant to the Constitution is no law at all" or somesuch. Gist is that the person is not guilty, since no legit law was broken. Of course, it'll cost you a fortune to argue it through the system. |