It was Law & Order Special Victims or something like that last Thursday or so on cable -- the female prosecutor was afraid the jury would do that -- in the case of a guy who shot a child-raper -- his daughter was the victim.

'Basil' was just mentioned on Emeril Live. Something to do with seasoning squash.

Are there laws* regarding a verdit of a jury member?  Or can you vote anyway yoiu want, with  no reprocution. Assuming your vote was not bribed, etc

*I wouldn't think there would be or are.

Quoted: Jury nullification and the Juror's Bill of Rights:   Every prospective juror should receive a full briefing on it and what it means and its historical context before being selected for trials. Judges and prosecutors hate the JBOR.   That alone is reason enough to use it. CJ

You know, If you wanted to get out of jury duty, all you would have to do is show up wearing a t-shirt that said "I believe in the Juror's Bill of Rights".  They would probably show you to the door right away.  That being said, I wouldn't do it.  I've always enjoyed the times I've been called to jury duty.



Vulcan94

What do you do if you are a jurer on one of those super long trials (like OJ's)? Sure there's civic duty, but come on.. Sequestered from Jan to Oct. That's a damn long time to be out of your normal life.

The legal system seems scared of the thought of Jury Nulification. If you even mention to the jury their right to do this you face discipline by the Bar. I find it disgusting that the justice system is so against this verdict. I feel that the jury should always be informed of what it is and that it is their right to nullify if they wish.
This lack of knowledge is, in my opinion an unjust limitation on the juries ability to render a verdict. I feel that the lack of informing them also impacts the defendant's right to due process. That is because the process is being limited by only allowing the jurors to pick from a limited choice of verdicts, which may not reflect the jurors true choice of the verdict should be. While I agree that there are many people who the criminal justice system protects too much, I also feel that there are those that are hurt by this bais for the justice system. And those that would benefit from informing a jury of their right to do this would most likely not be the people you would be concerned about.
It is a legal decision and the jury should be informed of their ability to choose this verdict if they feel the case warrants it.
An example of this would be the guy in the NY subway that shot four or five guys because they were mugging him. I am sorry I don't remember the case name.

I have done jury duty 3 times. I always take a printed copy of the appropriate section of state constitution which includes the following:

Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

Have not had to use it so far.

Quoted: 'Basil' was just mentioned on Emeril Live. Something to do with seasoning squash.

BAM!!

Quoted: Jury nullification and the Juror's Bill of Rights:   Every prospective juror should receive a full briefing on it and what it means and its historical context before being selected for trials. Judges and prosecutors hate the JBOR.   That alone is reason enough to use it. CJ

I've never heard of the JBOR before, I tried to find it on google but could find a full text. Anyone have a link to share or care to explain more? Sounds interesting.

Bump.  I'm interested in the JBOR too.

I'm guessing JBOR is :

Judicial Board Of Review ?

^ Jury Bill of Rights  ^

Quoted: The legal system seems scared of the thought of Jury Nulification. If you even mention to the jury their right to do this you face discipline by the Bar. I find it disgusting that the justice system is so against this verdict. I feel that the jury should always be informed of what it is and that it is their right to nullify if they wish. This lack of knowledge is, in my opinion an unjust limitation on the juries ability to render a verdict. I feel that the lack of informing them also impacts the defendant's right to due process. That is because the process is being limited by only allowing the jurors to pick from a limited choice of verdicts, which may not reflect the jurors true choice of the verdict should be. While I agree that there are many people who the criminal justice system protects too much, I also feel that there are those that are hurt by this bais for the justice system. And those that would benefit from informing a jury of their right to do this would most likely not be the people you would be concerned about. It is a legal decision and the jury should be informed of their ability to choose this verdict if they feel the case warrants it. An example of this would be the guy in the NY subway that shot four or five guys because they were mugging him. I am sorry I don't remember the case name.

Don't remember the guy's name but i can still see his face. The socialists raised a huge stink about it but he got off on the shooting. They gave him 6 months for having an illegal weapon. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it?

Okay to shoot the fuckers and defend yourself but it was illegal to have the gun in the first place. What a nation this has become.

Quoted: Quoted: The legal system seems scared of the thought of Jury Nulification. If you even mention to the jury their right to do this you face discipline by the Bar. I find it disgusting that the justice system is so against this verdict. I feel that the jury should always be informed of what it is and that it is their right to nullify if they wish. This lack of knowledge is, in my opinion an unjust limitation on the juries ability to render a verdict. I feel that the lack of informing them also impacts the defendant's right to due process. That is because the process is being limited by only allowing the jurors to pick from a limited choice of verdicts, which may not reflect the jurors true choice of the verdict should be. While I agree that there are many people who the criminal justice system protects too much, I also feel that there are those that are hurt by this bais for the justice system. And those that would benefit from informing a jury of their right to do this would most likely not be the people you would be concerned about. It is a legal decision and the jury should be informed of their ability to choose this verdict if they feel the case warrants it. An example of this would be the guy in the NY subway that shot four or five guys because they were mugging him. I am sorry I don't remember the case name. Don't remember the guy's name but i can still see his face. The socialists raised a huge stink about it but he got off on the shooting. They gave him 6 months for having an illegal weapon. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Okay to shoot the fuckers and defend yourself but it was illegal to have the gun in the first place. What a nation this has become.

Sounds like you're thinking of Benard Goetz. The so-called "subway vigilante." The last I heard, he was found guilty in a civil lawsuit and is being garnished, probably for the rest of his life.

That's why you should always shoot to kill. If you fail at that, and if you're lucky in court, move away and change your name so you won't get hit with a civil suit...it's a damn shame that the law is against you almost at every turn.

Scott

Scott

Check the Wikipedia article:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The legal system seems scared of the thought of Jury Nulification. If you even mention to the jury their right to do this you face discipline by the Bar. I find it disgusting that the justice system is so against this verdict. I feel that the jury should always be informed of what it is and that it is their right to nullify if they wish. This lack of knowledge is, in my opinion an unjust limitation on the juries ability to render a verdict. I feel that the lack of informing them also impacts the defendant's right to due process. That is because the process is being limited by only allowing the jurors to pick from a limited choice of verdicts, which may not reflect the jurors true choice of the verdict should be. While I agree that there are many people who the criminal justice system protects too much, I also feel that there are those that are hurt by this bais for the justice system. And those that would benefit from informing a jury of their right to do this would most likely not be the people you would be concerned about. It is a legal decision and the jury should be informed of their ability to choose this verdict if they feel the case warrants it. An example of this would be the guy in the NY subway that shot four or five guys because they were mugging him. I am sorry I don't remember the case name. Don't remember the guy's name but i can still see his face. The socialists raised a huge stink about it but he got off on the shooting. They gave him 6 months for having an illegal weapon. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Okay to shoot the fuckers and defend yourself but it was illegal to have the gun in the first place. What a nation this has become. Sounds like you're thinking of Benard Goetz. The so-called "subway vigilante." The last I heard, he was found guilty in a civil lawsuit and is being garnished, probably for the rest of his life. That's why you should always shoot to kill. If you fail at that, and if you're lucky in court, move away and change your name so you won't get hit with a civil suit...it's a damn shame that the law is against you almost at every turn. Scott Scott

That's the guy, thanks.
I'd change my ID and disappear before I would give one of those scumbags or their scumbag families a f'ing dime.
Agree with the shoot to kill bit. Though I would also say that one of the reasons the murder rate is artificially lower now is due to medical advances. Many more shooting victims survive now. Many more. Has considerable effect on murder rates as compared with previous decades. Just a FWIW.

Quoted: Many more shooting victims survive now. Many more. Has considerable effect on murder rates as compared with previous decades. Just a FWIW. That's why God invented the 1911.

John Browning was God?

Close maybe....

Quoted: Sounds like you're thinking of Benard Goetz. The so-called "subway vigilante." The last I heard, he was found guilty in a civil lawsuit and is being garnished, probably for the rest of his life. That's why you should always shoot to kill. If you fail at that, and if you're lucky in court, move away and change your name so you won't get hit with a civil suit...it's a damn shame that the law is against you almost at every turn. Scott Scott

Goetz was an asshole. If he would have kept his stupid mouth shut he would have walked.

Quoted: Quoted: Sounds like you're thinking of Benard Goetz. The so-called "subway vigilante." The last I heard, he was found guilty in a civil lawsuit and is being garnished, probably for the rest of his life. That's why you should always shoot to kill. If you fail at that, and if you're lucky in court, move away and change your name so you won't get hit with a civil suit...it's a damn shame that the law is against you almost at every turn. Scott Scott Goetz was an asshole. If he would have kept his stupid mouth shut he would have walked.

Even an asshole has a right to defend himself.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sounds like you're thinking of Benard Goetz. The so-called "subway vigilante." The last I heard, he was found guilty in a civil lawsuit and is being garnished, probably for the rest of his life. That's why you should always shoot to kill. If you fail at that, and if you're lucky in court, move away and change your name so you won't get hit with a civil suit...it's a damn shame that the law is against you almost at every turn. Scott Scott Goetz was an asshole. If he would have kept his stupid mouth shut he would have walked. Even an asshole has a right to defend himself.

Yes he had a right to defend himself.  And he would have been acquitted of all charges if he didn't open his big mouth.  

Quoted: What do you do if you are a jurer on one of those super long trials (like OJ's)? Sure there's civic duty, but come on.. Sequestered from Jan to Oct. That's a damn long time to be out of your normal life.

My first scare was an asbestos trial - over 50 merged cases (not a class action, though) expected 9 months.

There is a PRK law saying they can't can you for absence due to jury duty.   Nothing to say that they can't redefine your job, or hire someone else to take your place & offer you something at the same pay but that you're unsuited for, etc.   One judge I spoke to had no clue that the companies can find ways around this.

I think the judges used to pick on the civic-minded companies who had liberal jury-duty benefits, figuring they could shoulder the long trials better than the small business / self-employed.   But now a lot of them have a 2-week limit.

At any rate, financial hardship is one factor.

However I saw one person get off claiming she couldn't understand English well enough, even though she had almost 2 years of college completed.