Jury Nullification

A Whig Manifesto ^ | March 16, 2012 | Chuck Morse

[freedumb2003]

I have never been empaneled. A few years ago I got to the point of voir dire — I was asked “why is presumption of innocence important?” I answered “it is all that stands between a defendant and the State’s unlimited resources.” The prosecutor couldn’t bounce me fast enough...

[Capt. Tom]

If they are to function effectively as the 'conscience of the community' jurors must be told that they have the power and the right to say no to a prosecution in order to achieve a greater good."

That's what happened in the OJ Simpson trial. - Tom

[Bigun]

I can tell you from sad personal experience that you can start a really heated argument with a jurist by bringing up this subject! I will also say that I couldn’t agree more with ALL of this:

“The sitting juror, in judging a controversy, is also empanelled to examine the law upon which the controversy is based. In this regard, he holds the power to undo a law enacted by Congress, the President, or the Judiciary.”

Harlan Stone, 12th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in 1941 stated “The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.”

In addition, Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S.Supreme Court Justice, in 1902 stated “The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.”

[1rudeboy]

One of the cases you may hear about jury nullification, if you have the misfortune of attending law school, is one where a jury acquitted some people of trespass for occupying someone's office in order to protest the Vietnam War.

So in other words, the miscreants skated because the jury disagreed with U.S. foreign policy. The libs love this kind of stuff.

[bboop]

Yup, they couldn’t bounce me fast enough either. The defense attorney asked me, “Juror #1, how do you FEEL about Assault and Battery?” I said, “I believe it is wrong.”

haha, out the door and FAST.

[Capt. Tom]

— I was asked “why is presumption of innocence important?” I answered “it is all that stands between a defendant and the State’s unlimited resources.” The prosecutor couldn’t bounce me fast enough...

I have been empanelled 3 times here in Mass. at the Brocton court.
Each time I have told them I do not believe in the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. I explain the juror should be unbiased and the fact you asked a person to presume the defendant is innocent, until proven guilty is introducing a bias in favor of the defendant.
You should not do that: anymore than imply just because the person is on trial, that he was guilty of something,otherwise he wouldn't be on trial.
Jurors should be unbiased.
Then I go on to explain there is no constitutional or legal justification in American law for this assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

I never got put of a case and was empaneled each time. -tom

[Yashcheritsiy]

So in other words, the miscreants skated because the jury disagreed with U.S. foreign policy. The libs love this kind of stuff.

Just like with the presumption of innocence and the demand that the state prove the guilt of a defendant "beyond a reasonable doubt," the greater good is nevertheless served by applying the principle, even if it means that in a few cases, a guilty man may walk free.

[Yashcheritsiy]

“Presumption of innocence” deals with the level of surity required to render a guilty verdict, rather than whether the juror is biased or not. The defendant does, indeed, get to start out with the legal presumption that he does not have to prove that he is innocent, but that the state has to prove to the satisfaction of the jury that he is guilty. I think you are misunderstanding the point to the principle somewhat.

[1rudeboy]

I understand the principle just fine. Others don’t understand that it is a two-edged sword. And given the likelihood that jurors are selected for their “stupidity,” I would argue that negative outcomes are more prevalent.

[dagogo redux]

Thanks for posting this.

Looks like lawyers and lawyer-politicians have subverted another sacred principle on which our nation was founded.

[nonsporting]

Arizona jurors have to swear to do what the judge tells them. That was my "impression" and everyone else's, I'm sure. How's that for jury tampering?

I was part of a jury selection pool several times, but never got as far as being chosen as a juror or alternate. I was prepared to insist on my juror rights.

[dagogo redux]

Just as an aside, I recently testified as an expert witness in a wrongful death case. A team of opposing attorneys, bullies all, spent seven hours at the initial deposition assaulting my character and credentials in a deeply disturbing style.

In addition, their questions were worded - almost invariably - in a forced-choice manner that entirely precluded any possibility that I could render “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” that I had sworn to tell.

I pointed this out. The attorney interrogating me at the time replied, “I’m in charge here. You understand? I ask the question and you answer either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. That’s how the game is played, and you will play it that way.”

I bowed out of the case, and will never do court work again.

[Capt. Tom]

I understand the principle just fine. Others don’t understand that it is a two-edged sword. And given the likelihood that jurors are selected for their “stupidity,” I would argue that negative outcomes are more prevalent.

I agree.
One of the main qualiifications for being a juror on a high profile case is ignorance of a major event.

Do you know who OJ Simpson is?
Yes. He is an ex NFL football player accused of killing his wife and a man named Ron Coleman. - rejected

Next. do you know who OJ Simpson is?
I don't watch that much TV, but the name Simpson is familiar to me.
. Is he the son in the TV series the Simpsons? -qualified

[phockthis]

“Jury nullification of law,” as it is sometimes called, is a traditional right that was rigorously defended by America’s Founding Fathers. Those great men, Patriots all, intended the jury to serve as a final safeguard – a test that laws must pass before gaining sufficient popular authority for enforcement. Thus the Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power – representatives, senate, executive, judges – and finally juries. Each enactment of law must pass all these hurdles before it gains the authority to punish those who may choose to violate it. – unsigned article at

[GeronL]

lol. That sounds right.

The most coveted juror is the ignorant

[infowarrior]

The attorney interrogating me at the time replied, “I’m in charge here. You understand? I ask the question and you answer either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. That’s how the game is played, and you will play it that way.”

To which *I* would have responded, "This is 'We the People's' courtroom, and *THEY* are in charge, it is most empahtically *not* your private fiefdom, to do as you will *ESQUIRE*..."

the infowarrior

[RIghtwardHo]

Speaking as a former Prosecutor of 25 years, I agree with you 100%. Nullification, in rare circumstances, is absolutely appropriate. I sure know it happened a few times.

Santorum 2012

[SaraJohnson]

I totally believe in jury nullification, now more than ever. The amoral elitists have made too much illegal “progress” against the US consitution in the legal system. Cops have become too corrupted.

Bottom line - when I am on a jury - I am the law just as the elite are the law. I trust me more than them.

[Taylor42]

I want to ask you a question about this subject - How/when/where did it all go so wrong that it’s no longer a search for the truth?