I just got called for Jury duty for the first time (want info on Jury Nullification) - VANITY

[The FRugitive]

I just got called for jury duty for the first time.

I'm curious about jury nullification in case I get picked and get a consensual "criminal" case (tax evasion, drug posession, gun law violation, etc.). What would I need to know?

This could be my chance to stick it to the man. ;)

(Of course if I were to get a case of force or fraud I would follow the standing law.)

[The FRugitive]

I think that's the first answer to my question. Thanks. :)

Now, let me expand on that...what if I were to do that and did explain my reasons to other jurors - could I ever get in any trouble over that?

[Protagoras]

A juror/jury always has the right to NOT convict, regardless of the letter of the law, if they believe the person should not be prosecuted.

Everything you said after that was extraneous.

[SauronOfMordor]

It means that a juror, or jury, can't be forced to vote guilty regardless of the evidence. See OJ simpson case.

Incorrect example of jury nullification

Jury nullification has to do with making an unjust or unconstitutional law unenforcible by refusing to convict anyone for a violation of it. The jurors in the OJ trial had no objection to the laws against murder -- they just didn't think it was bad for a Black celebrity to kill a White woman. If OJ's victims had instead lain in wait and offed HIM, those jurors would have had different opinions. The point is, it's the LAW and not the PERSONALITIES involved

Examples of Jury Nullification:

• refusing to convict a man for the crime of defending himself with an unregistered handgun
• refusing to convict a cancer patient undergoing chemotherapy for possession of marijuana for medical purposes
• refusing to put somebody in jail for praying in front of an abortion clinic
• refusing to convict a person for "wetlands violation" for putting dirt on a muddy spot on his property

etc, etc. Catch the distinction?

[showme_the_Glory]

Have you ever drank alcohol? Have you ever taken drugs, ever taken legal ones? Do you own a gun, ever shot anybody? Have you ever been in a Turkish bath house?

[freeper12]

>>explain my reasons

Probably best not to, imo. Just vote to acquit (if thats what you want), and let it be.

[Rifleman]

A juror's job is to do both.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The formal purpose of the trial is to determine if the Prosecution can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt without violating the rules (constitutional, statutory, evidential, etc.) Jury nullification is independent of the above.

[The Brush]

I went for jury duty last September and I had the time of my life! I answered every question honestly. I told the judge that I felt all lawyers and judges were less than honest, cited direct violations of the Supreme Court rules in my divorce. I went on to explain how each charge I filed against judges and lawyers were ignored and I said that unless I could question each witness I couldn't possibly make a fair determination of innocence or guilt.

The judge reminded me that the Constitution allows that each person has the opportunity to... I cut him off and told him that if the Constitution were truly in effect, Clinton would be in prison and each of the "jurors" who refused to look at all the evidence in the impeachment trial would have themselves been impeached.

I also told him that his oath as a member of the bar required him to file charges against each of the Senators who didn't look at all the evidence before casting their vote. I asked him if it would be okay if I said, during a trial, "I've seen enough, no more evidence, let's vote"
I then said: "I'm not going to ask you if you did file charges against those senators your Honor, but if you didn't, you are proving my assumption."
The group of potential jurors I was with gasped! The judge had no followup questions and, oddly enough, I was not chosen as a juror.

This is your opportunity to get your point out, have a day of entertainment and get paid $15.00 for your opinion.

[SauronOfMordor]

All you have to do is vote to acquit. You do not have to explain or justify your vote to anyone.

Indeed, coming out and saying that you choose not to convict because you disagree with the law may be grounds for mistrial.

[not-alone]

Don't bet on it . I get called whenever I move and always get picked. My husband used to laugh at that and say if they only knew your record for "hang him".

[Protagoras]

So you're not going to honest with the court--you're going to pretend that you're serious about your jury duty, but your real agenda is jury nullification.

Jury nullification IS part of his duty.

Isn't that about right?

but your real agenda is anything which takes power out of the hands of the governed and transfers it to the government elite. Isn't that about right?

[NYFriend]

It's this simple: as a juror, undre the law, you can vote "not guilty" for any reason, or no reason at all. You may not be carrying out your moral duty as a juror, but it's not illegal. I say that in the sense that a not guity verdict cannot be overturned because the jury disregarded evidence. When you vote, you vote up or down, no reason to get into the "why".

If it is a tax evasion case, and the defense claims that the income tax ammendment was never ratified, and you agree, then you may consider voting not guilty. In the strictest sense, this isn't the purpose of a jury. The jury finds facts. But, as has been said here, you can do what you want. Now, technically, if the defense doesn't raise the issue, it may be improper for you to consider your belief about the ratification of the income tax ammendment, becaues that's a preconceived bias. You are supposed to be free from those. Arguably, that's a legal fiction.

Either way, you can vote, guilty or not, and you are not expected to offer any explaination.

[The FRugitive]

No, that's not my purpose at all.

I will be honest when questioned. My purpose is to serve.

What I'm saying is that if I were to get a case that violates my conscience and the ideals of liberty that our nation was founded upon then I would not vote to convict.

[cajungirl]

What you said so well! Ditto

[Catspaw]

You may want to check out SauronOfMordor's posts #43 and #49. It sounds more like someone wanting to muck up the system rather than someone using jury nullification correctly.

[jpl]

I love watching lawyers get hysterical whenever they perceive that the uneducated rabble are threatening their lofty little fiefdom.

[BabsC]

Just mention Jury Law and you won't get on a jury. A jury is supposed to try the law as well as the defendent, if you let on that you know this you will be passed over.

[Catspaw]

This could be my chance to stick it to the man. ;)

That's your statement, not mine.

[Protagoras]

Refusing to convict anyone of violating laws enacted under the Volstead Act.

Which was a very important reason why the first prohibition was abandoned.

[Iron Eagle]

Okay, I just read all the posts -- and I'm frigtened.

If you you want to change the law, then do that through the legislative process. That is the underpinning of this Constitutional Republic we claim to so revere.

Your job as a juror is to determine the facts NOT, I REPEAT, NOT the law. You will get that instruiction from the bench. Any one who tells you otherwise either does not practice law, or should not practice law.

In judging the facts, however, that is your domain entirely. You judge the credibility of the witnesses in every aspect. You judge the credibility and reliability of any extrinsic evidence presented as well. You also get to determine if the state (in a criminal action) or the plaintiff (in a civil action) has met his or her burden of proof. Obviously, those burdens differ, and the court will instruct on the burden at issue.

In all honesty, if you take the position that certain "crimes" are illegitimate because you disagree with them, you should not sit on a jury. You should take the time to thoughtfully express your position to the Court, and then write your legislator, run for office, support a bill, or do whatever you think you must to move new legislation. Jury nullification is not the common man's method of payback for laws it does not like. Jury nullification undermines the very system we hold dear.

I would not say that jury nullification is NEVER proper, but I am hard-pressed to think of a circumstance where it is trully appropriate. Most "jury nullification" verdicts can and are based upon some factual determination, therefore, they ar not really jury nullification.

Jury nullification would be. A man and a woman are robbed, beaten, and the woman is raped and murdered in front of the husband. Husband learns identity of the killer, goes to his house, and kills the man that same week. In Court, the Husband admits his pre-meditaded killing, tells his story, and throws himself on the mercy of the Court. He admits the crime, yet a Jury decides to aquit based on the circumstance. That would be Jury nullification. It would be understandable, but it would not be proper for a country that wants to live by the rule of law.