Jury Nullification

[redcliffsw]

Jury Nullification
Why you should know what it is


s it true or false that when you sit on a jury, you may vote on the verdict according to your own conscience? "True," you say, but then why do most judges tell you that you may consider "only the facts" and that you are not to let your conscience, opinion of the law, or the motives of the defendant affect your decision?

In a trial by jury, the judge's job is to referee the trial and provide neutral legal advice to the jury, beginning with a full and truthful explanation of a juror's rights and responsibilities.

But judges rarely "fully inform" jurors of their rights, especially their power to judge the law itself and to vote on the verdict according to conscience. Instead, they end up assisting the prosecution by dismissing any prospective juror who will admit to knowing about this right, starting with anyone who also admits having qualms with any specific law.

In fact, if you have doubts about the fairness of a law, you have the right and obligation to find someone innocent even though they have actually broken the law! John Adams, our second president, had this to say about the juror: "It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

It was normal procedure in the early days of our country to inform juries of their right to judge the law and the defendant. And if the judge didn't tell them, the defense attorney very often would. The nation's Founders understood that trials by juries of ordinary citizens, fully informed of their powers as jurors, would confine the government to its proper role as the servant, not the master, of the people.

rest of the story:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/emal1.1.1.html

[Diane Amberg]

So what is your point? Have you ever sat on a jury? In California? I wonder what Mike Huckabee thinks now? (oops!)

[redcliffsw]

Did you understand it?  I've been on a jury.  Huckabee is not much different than most other politicians.

[Diane Amberg]

I guess I'll have to re read it slower. Having sat on several juries in our superior court, I'm not sure what he's driving at.

[Varmit]

Not sure what he's driving at??    He's talking about how our legal system and those employed by it (judges and lawyers) are attempting to skirt the constitution by not informing juries of their right and DUTY to judge a person not only on what happened, but on how they see the law.  For example, if New York passed a law saying that it is illegal to carry a firearm and a person is arrested for breaking that law, if the jury feels that it is a stupid law or violates the constitution they can find that person "not guilty".  Even if that person fully admits to breaking that law.  If the Jury had followed the judges orders to base their decision solely upon the law then the person would be found guilty.

[larryJ]

In California, once the jury has been seated, the judge reads (at length) the law concerning the offense the person is accused of committing.  He also admonishes the jury to go only with the evidence and not any personal experiences.  I once sat on a jury where the jury selection and the judge's rendering of the law and admonishments took all morning and then after lunch, the trial began and the jury was given the case to deliberate and made a decision within two hours after lunch.  It took longer for the judge to give out the instructions than the actual length of the trial.  This was only one time that happened to me.  But, I have served on many juries and the judge always reads the law, etc.

Larryj

[Diane Amberg]

Ok, now I get it. Here is same as Larry said. The jury doesn't "interpret" any law that is in place. It is what it is. If a law is "stupid" and doesn't fit the times, it should be changed, but a jury trial isn't where that happens. That's what the lawyers are supposed to do, present cases so the jury can see just the facts in the case at hand, pros and cons. Judges here can have a say in sentencing too. 
  But there is always the appeals process.
We've had a lot of guilty people cave in and plead guilty once they get in the court house and get the flavor of the process. We waited for hours on a case one time where a guy got caught stealing frozen food from a  train car, was seen and chased by the police and drove like a crazy person all though a neighborhood, across many lawns, knocking down fences, bushes, small trees,etc. He finally killed his vehicle and was caught. He wound up with a huge list of charges including theft, drugs, driving under the influence and things I wouldn't even have thought of. His lawyer spent a long time trying to get him to plead guilty and avoid trial.  He refused. We found him guilty. Turns out he was a guy with lots of previous charges but we couldn't know that part. I found out later he got off on some technicality at sentencing and disappeared into Tennessee. One of my police office friends just shrugged and said,"Good, now he's somebody else's problem".

[larryJ]

Interestingly enough, it is almost impossible to go into a juror room and discuss a case without personal experiences or emotions making the verdict tough to reach.  An example:  One of the first cases I sat on, and was foreman of the jury, involved a black man accused of driving under the influence.  He refused to take a field sobriety test and also refused to take a urine test and a blood test.  Automatically, he loses his license by not taking a sobriety test.  The defense lawyer concentrated most of his presentation to the fact that because the guy was black, he was mistreated and the handcuffs were too tight hurting him too much.  Plus, he was subjected to racial insults.  When he was pulled over, he was weaving all over the freeway and after he stopped, an open can of beer was on the floorboard.  So the evidence is:  not subjecting himself to a sobriety test (he is probably intoxicated, because if he was sober, he would want to prove it), the open can of beer and the erratic driving.  This is a no-brainer, right?

It took almost a week of deliberation.  Why?  Three of the members of the jury were black.  In their minds, the racial issue was more important than the facts. The comments were:  "yeah, that's the way blacks are treated by police."  And, "yelling racial insults at him is not right."  The only thing on their minds was the race issue and they totally ignored the evidence.  After the week was up, we wound up a hung jury because we could not get them to look at the evidence without the race issue. 

After the trial was declared a mistrial, we were interviewed outside in the hallway by the attorneys who like to know what happens in the jury room.  The black jurors were not present at this time.  We learned that the defendant had several previous arrests for DUI's and did not have a valid driver's license.  These facts were not allowed during the trial.  So he walked. 

I did sit on one case involving a older Mexican man accused of possession of drugs.  The jury was selected and then it was lunch time.  When we came back from lunch, he had changed his pleas to guilty because once he saw that this case was a reality and there were 12 people who were going to decide his fate, he folded.

I have been on many juries and they have always been involved with people's emotions in making a decision.  The last one I was on, the foreman repeated that personal experience and emotions would not be tolerated, just decide the case based on the evidence.  Didn't happen on that one, either.

Larryj

[srkruzich]

The problem is that when the judge circumvents the ability of the jury.  I remember being on the jury of a abuse case, and we requested to see evidence and was told that we would not be able to see it, to refer to our notes.   Needless to say the trial was tossed because of the judges refusal to allow the jury to weigh the evidence against the facts. 

[srkruzich]

One more note,  The judicial system is bought n paid for.  You won't get a fair trial unless you have money.  IF your some poor slob that relys on a public defender, you might as well cop a plea to some lesser charge even though your innocent cause your going to get a whole lot less time than trying to take  it to court.