User Panel
Quoted:
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_5r4-496fViOHTcMiTLujwJwCpI_mnW2oC6xXQgUpoct=w1597-h815-no from the jury i was on... View Quote Did you bring this up during deliberation? |
|
You expect the judge to tell you you CAN tell him to fuck off and that the law is wrong? Lol.
|
|
|
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. |
|
"Oh, hey guys, this 'law' I'm going to instruct you on - its just a suggestion. Do what you want."
Sure. |
|
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 don't have to explain the reasoning behind your verdict to anyone. Just saying.
__________________________________________________________________ Cross-platform electronic bound book (original thread). PGP public key. «nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus» |
|
Quoted: You don't have to explain the reasoning behind your verdict to anyone. Just saying. __________________________________________________________________ Cross-platform electronic bound book (original thread). PGP public key. «nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus» View Quote Bingo. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You don't have to explain the reasoning behind your verdict to anyone. Just saying. __________________________________________________________________ Cross-platform electronic bound book (original thread). PGP public key. «nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus» Bingo. Like in the video I posted. A jury cannot be punished for a "wrong" decision. Once found "not guilty" the defendant cannot be tried again for that same crime. |
|
|
Ill nullify the shit out of whatever I want. Laws against nullification will be nullified as well.
|
|
Quoted:
Ill nullify the shit out of whatever I want. Laws against nullification will be nullified as well. View Quote 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 find the following interesting
Quoted:
... However, jury nullification is not the legal "right” of either thedefendant or the jury; the jury merely has a power "to acquit on bad grounds,because the government is not allowed to appeal from an acquittal by a jury.” (United States v. Kerley, 838 F.2d 932,938 (7th Cir.1988)). Thus, although a jury-nullification verdict must stand,such a verdict contravenes the law the jury has been instructed to follow indeciding the case. View Quote My state's constitution states; "Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts." I would like to hear a lawyer's perspective on this. |
|
Quoted:
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? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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. |
|
Quoted:
Jury nullification does not provide for jurors creating laws, just for nullifying existing laws. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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. Six of one, half dozen of the other. |
|
Quoted:
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. Six of one, half dozen of the other. How so? |
|
Quoted:
Jury nullification does not provide for jurors creating laws, just for nullifying existing laws. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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? |
|
Jury's are suppose to do is "The jury then hears the evidence against the defendant, potential defenses, and weighs the evidence to determine whether it satisfies the charged criminal offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. It is then the jury's duty to gather together, discuss the evidence, and, once the necessary consensus is reached, render a verdict of guilty or not guilty in a given case." (from http://criminal.findlaw.com)
The state and defense will make motions and arguments before and sometimes during a trial (outside of the juries presence) about what testimony, evidence or any other information that would prejudice each side case or the jury. The judge has the responsibility to determine what will be allowed to be presented to the jury in the interest of a fair trial. What is the purpose of nullification, if a juror complies with the jury instructions? Jurors should not research or read about the case they are hearing. If they have any prior knowledge of the case they have to agree that they are capable of setting aside this knowledge or pre-trial publicity and make a decision based on what is presented during trial. It is up to each juror to listen to the testimony and evidence presented and weigh the evidence presented against the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for conviction. What is nullification? It is when the jury likely is sympathetic to a defendant or does not favor a law. There is a fine line between non-conformity and anarchy. Jury nullification reminds me of the old movie, the Wild one: Mildred: "What are you rebelling against?" Johnny: "Whaddaya got?" |
|
|
Quoted:
You don't have to explain the reasoning behind your verdict to anyone. Just saying. __________________________________________________________________ Cross-platform electronic bound book (original thread). PGP public key. «nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus» View Quote "The prosecution did not prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt". |
|
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. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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. Good rebuttal, counselor. |
|
Quoted: 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? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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? Did someone you arrest back in the day get off through jury nullification? |
|
Quoted:
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? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
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? 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. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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. |
|
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. |
|
Quoted:
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? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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? Truth be told if you have a viewpoint like that anti-gunner then little that you can do is going to "convince" you otherwise. They may judge on the law, but don't think for a second that they will use everything to scrutinize you and forget about the other facts. So with that said in your scenario, an anti-gun juror can go (in his mind) "well i know that people who carry rifles openly are total dickheads and extremists... so this man most likely was an asshole causing the disorderly conduct" |
|
|
Guy I worked with used to hand out Jury Nullification pamphlets at the court house in Seattle. On a public sidewalk where the jurors passed by. He was arrested multiple times for "trespassing", littering (some people would just throw the pamphlets on the ground when he give it to them) and disorderly conduct. He went to court every time and it was tossed every time.
After he won a couple of counter suits for false arrest and harassment they just posted a cop at the door who demanded the pamphlets before the jurors would be allowed in. Anyone who refused to hand them over, or dared look at or read them before going in, was immediately excused from jury duty. He said he contacted the media multiple times and he said they were intensely not interested in covering his "illegal" and "unethical" antics. This was back in the mid 90's. I can imagine it's viewed with even more hate by the courts now. |
|
|
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. View Quote 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". |
|
Quoted:
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". View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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? |
|
Quoted:
Mistaken about what? That your hypothetical OCer was charged with disorderly conduct? Or that the jury can choose to nullify it? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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. |
|
Quoted: Did you bring this up during deliberation? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_5r4-496fViOHTcMiTLujwJwCpI_mnW2oC6xXQgUpoct=w1597-h815-no from the jury i was on... Did you bring this up during deliberation? |
|
Quoted:
The jury will nullify the law that says it is perfectly legal to carry a rifle openly in Texas. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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. Texas has a law specifically giving permission to do something, rather than restricting something? What is the text of this law? |
|
Quoted:
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". View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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". That's the problem with a broad term like "disorderly conduct". The cops and prosecutors know that a straight up charge on what they are actually annoyed with, would fail so they use a catch-all charge. |
|
Quoted:
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? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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? That would not be a case of jury nullification. Jury nullification is intended to be an "AND" gate that must be satisfied in conjunction with the elements of the crime in order to convict a person - to ensure both that the person's actions match the law AND that the law itself is just and appropriately applied. Should either of those tests fail, there is no conviction. Conversely, a jury voting to convict even when they know that no crime occurred is always a possibility, and the presence or lack of jury nullification has no effect on this. The difference, though, is that if wrongly convicted in this way by a jury, a person can still appeal and seek to have the conviction overturned. The government does not have the ability (and rightly so) to similarly appeal an acquittal. This tips the balance in favor of the defendant, and the ability to nullify provides the people with a method to directly halt over-reaching laws or overzealous prosecutions. 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? Is it not better to place the jury in a position where they can judge both the facts and the law? |
|
|
Quoted:
You are just being obstinate. The law which makes openly carrying a pistol illegal, specifically exempts rifles or shotguns. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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. |
|
|
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? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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. |
|
Quoted:
That would not be a case of jury nullification. Jury nullification is intended to be an "AND" gate that must be satisfied in conjunction with the elements of the crime in order to convict a person - to ensure both that the person's actions match the law AND that the law itself is just and appropriately applied. Should either of those tests fail, there is no conviction. Conversely, a jury voting to convict even when they know that no crime occurred is always a possibility, and the presence or lack of jury nullification has no effect on this. The difference, though, is that if wrongly convicted in this way by a jury, a person can still appeal and seek to have the conviction overturned. The government does not have the ability (and rightly so) to similarly appeal an acquittal. This tips the balance in favor of the defendant, and the ability to nullify provides the people with a method to directly halt over-reaching laws or overzealous prosecutions. 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? Is it not better to place the jury in a position where they can judge both the facts and the law? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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? That would not be a case of jury nullification. Jury nullification is intended to be an "AND" gate that must be satisfied in conjunction with the elements of the crime in order to convict a person - to ensure both that the person's actions match the law AND that the law itself is just and appropriately applied. Should either of those tests fail, there is no conviction. Conversely, a jury voting to convict even when they know that no crime occurred is always a possibility, and the presence or lack of jury nullification has no effect on this. The difference, though, is that if wrongly convicted in this way by a jury, a person can still appeal and seek to have the conviction overturned. The government does not have the ability (and rightly so) to similarly appeal an acquittal. This tips the balance in favor of the defendant, and the ability to nullify provides the people with a method to directly halt over-reaching laws or overzealous prosecutions. 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? Is it not better to place the jury in a position where they can judge both the facts and the law? Great point. |
|
Quoted:
As a juror you'd vote to convict someone for an NFA violation? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
"Oh, hey guys, this 'law' I'm going to instruct you on - its just a suggestion. Do what you want." Sure. As a juror you'd vote to convict someone for an NFA violation? We're discussing a jury instruction. You expect the court to tell a jury to do whatever it wants? |
|
Quoted:
That's the problem with a broad term like "disorderly conduct". The cops and prosecutors know that a straight up charge on what they are actually annoyed with, would fail so they use a catch-all charge. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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". That's the problem with a broad term like "disorderly conduct". The cops and prosecutors know that a straight up charge on what they are actually annoyed with, would fail so they use a catch-all charge. While it's a problem, it is also possible that someone could be validly carrying under an open carry statute and commit an unrelated offense. I have seen CCW'rs arrested for DUI and Disorderly Conduct (engaging in affray) for example. |
|
Quoted:
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 use whatever legal means available to oppose them. Jury nullification is but one of those legal means. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
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 use whatever legal means available to oppose them. Jury nullification is but one of those legal means. FIFY |
|
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. View Quote 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. |
|
OLR - your instructions basically mirrors every other state's jury instructions.
Jurors are instructed to follow the law and determine the facts (or apply the law to the facts as they find them). No one on a jury is ever told they have the power to determine if the law itself is just or unjust. What remains clear is that the jury system was protected by the BOR as a basic right for an important reason - as a basic check against .gov overreach. No one can tell you that you must vote to convict or not, that is 100% the decision of each individual on the jury. |
|
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.