no jury nullification in ohio?

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - no jury nullification in ohio? (Page 1 of 5)

Posted: 8/6/2014 6:35:13 AM EDT

from the jury i was on...

Posted: 8/6/2014 6:38:45 AM EDT

[#1]

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?

Posted: 8/6/2014 6:39:15 AM EDT

[#2]

Then can instruct you any way that they want.

Posted: 8/6/2014 6:40:24 AM EDT

[#3]

You expect the judge to tell you you CAN tell him to fuck off and that the law is wrong? Lol.

Posted: 8/6/2014 6:43:16 AM EDT

[#4]

IIRC you're not allowed to bring up "jury nullification" on the jury anyway.

Posted: 8/6/2014 6:43:43 AM EDT

[#5]

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 6:44:13 AM EDT

[#6]

That is a standard jury instruction. Arizona has one very similar to it. However (from a motion I filed)

"Paredes-Solano has not cited, nor have we
found, any Arizona
or federal authority supporting his
argument that he was entitled to a jury nullification instruction. But, we find
extremely persuasive the substantial jurisprudence from the federal courts
concluding defendants are not entitled to such an instruction. It is true, as
Paredes-Solano notes, that the jury's nullification power is
"well-established.” See (Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 245-48
(1999)). However, jury nullification is not the legal "right” of either the
defendant 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 in
deciding the case. United States v.
Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, 616 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Washington,
705 F.2d 489, 494 (D.C.Cir.1983) (per curiam). Consequently, although "juries
have the power to ignore the law in their verdicts, courts have no obligation
to tell them they may do so.” United
States v. Edwards, 101 F.3d 17, 19 (2d Cir.1996); see also
Thomas, 116
F.3d at 616 n. 9 ("[C]riminal defendants have no right to a jury instruction
alerting jurors to this power to act in contravention of their duty.”); United States v. Muse, 83 F.3d 672, 677 (4th Cir.1996)
("Although a jury is entitled to acquit on any grounds, a defendant is not
entitled to inform the jury that it can acquit him on grounds other than the
facts in evidence.”).”

(State v. Paredes-Solano, 223 Ariz. 284 at (Div. 2, 2009))

Posted: 8/6/2014 6:46:10 AM EDT

[#7]

"Oh, hey guys, this 'law' I'm going to instruct you on - its just a suggestion. Do what you want."

Sure.

Posted: 8/6/2014 6:47:23 AM EDT

[#8]

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 6:47:30 AM EDT

[#9]

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»

Posted: 8/6/2014 6:49:14 AM EDT

[#10]

Quote History

Quoted:
That is a standard jury instruction. Arizona has one very similar to it. However (from a motion I filed)

"Paredes-Solano has not cited, nor have wefound, any Arizonaor federal authority supporting hisargument that he was entitled to a jury nullification instruction. But, we findextremely persuasive the substantial jurisprudence from the federal courtsconcluding defendants are not entitled to such an instruction. It is true, asParedes-Solano notes, that the jury's nullification power is"well-established.” See (Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 245-48(1999)). 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. United States v.Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, 616 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Washington,705 F.2d 489, 494 (D.C.Cir.1983) (per curiam). Consequently, although "jurieshave the power to ignore the law in their verdicts, courts have no obligationto tell them they may do so.” UnitedStates v. Edwards, 101 F.3d 17, 19 (2d Cir.1996); see alsoThomas, 116F.3d at 616 n. 9 ("[C]riminal defendants have no right to a jury instructionalerting jurors to this power to act in contravention of their duty.”); United States v. Muse, 83 F.3d 672, 677 (4th Cir.1996)("Although a jury is entitled to acquit on any grounds, a defendant is notentitled to inform the jury that it can acquit him on grounds other than thefacts in evidence.”).”

(State v. Paredes-Solano, 223 Ariz. 284 at (Div. 2, 2009))

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:
That is a standard jury instruction. Arizona has one very similar to it. However (from a motion I filed)

"Paredes-Solano has not cited, nor have wefound, any Arizonaor federal authority supporting hisargument that he was entitled to a jury nullification instruction. But, we findextremely persuasive the substantial jurisprudence from the federal courtsconcluding defendants are not entitled to such an instruction. It is true, asParedes-Solano notes, that the jury's nullification power is"well-established.” See (Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 245-48(1999)). 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. United States v.Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, 616 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Washington,705 F.2d 489, 494 (D.C.Cir.1983) (per curiam). Consequently, although "jurieshave the power to ignore the law in their verdicts, courts have no obligationto tell them they may do so.” UnitedStates v. Edwards, 101 F.3d 17, 19 (2d Cir.1996); see alsoThomas, 116F.3d at 616 n. 9 ("[C]riminal defendants have no right to a jury instructionalerting jurors to this power to act in contravention of their duty.”); United States v. Muse, 83 F.3d 672, 677 (4th Cir.1996)("Although a jury is entitled to acquit on any grounds, a defendant is notentitled to inform the jury that it can acquit him on grounds other than thefacts in evidence.”).”

(State v. Paredes-Solano, 223 Ariz. 284 at (Div. 2, 2009))

This part stuck out to me.

because the government is not allowed to appeal from an acquittal by a jury.

Now I see why the courts dont like to tell people about Jury Nullification.

Posted: 8/6/2014 6:50:18 AM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 6:51:39 AM EDT

[#12]

Quote History

Quoted:

Bingo.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 6:59:54 AM EDT

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:
"Oh, hey guys, this 'law' I'm going to instruct you on - its just a suggestion. Do what you want."

Sure.

View Quote

That - and in many states an attorney cannot mention jury nullification or even hint at it when giving closing arguments.

Posted: 8/6/2014 7:06:27 AM EDT

[#14]

Ill nullify the shit out of whatever I want. Laws against nullification will be nullified as well.

Posted: 8/6/2014 7:20:13 AM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

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?

Posted: 8/6/2014 7:22:47 AM EDT

[#16]

I find the following interesting

Quote History

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 7:27:01 AM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

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

Quote History

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 7:35:00 AM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:

Jury nullification does not provide for jurors creating laws, just for nullifying existing laws.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 7:35:26 AM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

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?

Posted: 8/6/2014 7:40:18 AM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:

Jury nullification does not provide for jurors creating laws, just for nullifying existing laws.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

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?

Posted: 8/6/2014 7:40:47 AM EDT

[#21]

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?"

Posted: 8/6/2014 7:44:22 AM EDT

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:
How so?

View Quote

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 7:45:45 AM EDT

[#23]

Quote History

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".

Posted: 8/6/2014 7:58:15 AM EDT

[#24]

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 7:58:16 AM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

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

Quote History

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 7:59:32 AM EDT

[#26]

Quote History

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

Quote History

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?

Posted: 8/6/2014 7:59:43 AM EDT

[#27]

Quote History

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

Quote History

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:03:35 AM EDT

[#28]

Quote History

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

Quote History

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:04:00 AM EDT

[#29]

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:04:49 AM EDT

[#30]

Quote History

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

Quote History

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"

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:05:09 AM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:

Did someone you arrest back in the day get off through jury nullification?

View Quote

I would have no way of knowing, but I doubt it.

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:06:00 AM EDT

[#32]

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:07:10 AM EDT

[#33]

Quote History

Quoted:

Then can instruct you any way that they want.

View Quote

And you can decide any way you want.

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:08:56 AM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

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".

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:12:46 AM EDT

[#35]

Quote History

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

Quote History

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?

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:14:37 AM EDT

[#36]

Quote History

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

Quote History

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:17:32 AM EDT

[#37]

Quote History

Quoted:
Did you bring this up during deliberation?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

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?

no, the guy was guilty....

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:18:26 AM EDT

[#38]

Quote History

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

Quote History

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?

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:19:32 AM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

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

Quote History

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:21:50 AM EDT

[#40]

Quote History

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

Quote History

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?

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:22:38 AM EDT

[#41]

Quote History

Quoted:
Texas has a law specifically giving permission to do something, rather than restricting something? What is the text of this law?

View Quote

You are just being obstinate. The law which makes openly carrying a pistol illegal, specifically exempts rifles or shotguns.

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:24:17 AM EDT

[#42]

Quote History

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

Quote History

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:25:23 AM EDT

[#43]

Quote History

Quoted:
"Oh, hey guys, this 'law' I'm going to instruct you on - its just a suggestion. Do what you want."

Sure.

View Quote

As a juror you'd vote to convict someone for an NFA violation?

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:26:44 AM EDT

[#44]

Quote History

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

Quote History

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:28:18 AM EDT

[#45]

Quote History

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

Quote History

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:28:34 AM EDT

[#46]

Quote History

Quoted:

As a juror you'd vote to convict someone for an NFA violation?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

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?

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:29:23 AM EDT

[#47]

Quote History

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

Quote History

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:32:02 AM EDT

[#48]

Quote History

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

Quote History

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

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:32:19 AM EDT

[#49]

Quote History

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.

Posted: 8/6/2014 8:32:29 AM EDT

[#50]

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.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - no jury nullification in ohio? (Page 1 of 5)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us