Jury Nullification

[Diane Amberg]

All the better reason not to get caught up in the system. Ya can't pay, don't play.

[srkruzich]

All the better reason not to get caught up in the system. Ya can't pay, don't play.

yes it is unfortunate that we have allowed it to get that way.  But there are a few jurors out there that won't allow the system to do that. 

[Varmit]

Diane and Larry, did ya'll actually read the article?  The Constitution actually give juries the power to veto a law if they consider it a "bad" law.  Juries are no longer informed of this right.  As for their personal expirences...that is exactly one of the things that they should rely on, not just the law.

[srkruzich]

Diane and Larry, did ya'll actually read the article?  The Constitution actually give juries the power to veto a law if they consider it a "bad" law.  Juries are no longer informed of this right.  As for their personal expirences...that is exactly one of the things that they should rely on, not just the law.

That is right and in fact there are 12 additional judges sitting in a jury, with 1 main judge on the bench to provide order.
Just because the judge orders the jury to only do this that and the other the jury has the right and duty to judge the law being used. 

At the time the Constitution was written, the definition of the term "jury" referred to a group of citizens empowered to judge both the law and the evidence in the case before it. Then, in the February term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford (3 Dall 1). The instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

So you see, in an American courtroom there are in a sense twelve judges in attendance, not just one. And they are there with the power to review the "law" as well as the "facts"! Actually, the "judge" is there to conduct the proceedings in an orderly fashion and maintain the safety of all parties involved.

As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))

[larryJ]

I did go back and re-read it.  I never said the judge has to tell juries about "jury nullification."  I only stated what the judge says at the beginning of the trial.  During the selection of the juries, as they are asked about their beliefs, and someone says "I don't believe this law is a good thing," they won't get selected for the jury.  This pretty much takes care of anything the judge has to tell the jury about their rights to "jury nullification."

See paste from Wikipedia:

First Chief Justice of the US John Jay wrote: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy". State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1, 4 (1794),[26]

It was over time that judicial and legal opinion slowly changed to consider jury nullification only a power and not a right of juries, as judges and prosecutors wanted stricter enforcement of laws that juries nullified. This shift stemmed from the 18th century conflict between two factions of English jurists, the first led by Lord Camden, which was originally prevalent in what became the United States, and the second led by Lord Mansfield. The position of the latter was called "Mansfieldism" by Jefferson[27] and the shift has been called "Mansfieldization".[28]

In recent years, judges seem to be less likely to favor jury nullification. While unable to take away the power of nullification, they have done much to prevent its use. The first landmark decisions since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution confirmed several rights of the defense in a criminal case: a requirement on the bench not make a decision on motions until all legal arguments had been made by both sides; the right to be free of making those arguments before the jury had been seated; and the right to make those legal arguments to the jury.[29][30]

The first major decision that departed from this line was Games v. Stiles ex dem Dunn, 39 U.S. 322 (1840),[31] which held that the bench could override the verdict of the jury on a point of law. The 1895 decision in Sparf v. U.S. written by Justice John Marshall Harlan held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. It was a 5-4 decision. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present legal argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.[32]

Recent court rulings have contributed to the prevention of jury nullification. A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.[33] In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify.[34] In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction that "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification."[35] In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b).[36] The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification


______________


So, a judge is not really required to advise the jury about "jury nullification" and could overturn the jury's decision if he  feels the jury is wrong.

Larryj

[srkruzich]

Well it is in effect up to the individual on the jury to nullify or allow the law to be used.  A juror doesn't have to disclose his intent to nullify the law, only has to vote his conscience. 

[larryJ]

This is true, that a juror does not have to voice his opinion as to the right or wrong of a law.  However, judges instructions are explicit in that, jurors are to judge the case before them solely on the facts and evidence presented to them.  Some one's conscience can become a factor during deliberations, and often does.  This would result in a hung jury causing a mistrial.  So, if you vote your conscience and not on the evidence presented to you, you are in effect, accomplishing the same thing. 

Remember, judges (paid for or not) can override the jury's decision.  If the decision is a hung jury, the judge will say, "Thank you very much for your service."  And, then after the jury has left the building, the judge can reverse that decision, unbeknownst to the jury.  The Prosecutor can refile the case and start all over again. 

I did sit on a jury panel that, during the voir dire, one woman said she thought the law was not a good law.  The judge told her that voters have to change the law if they feel it is wrong.  For the time being, this is the law and I am asking you to stick to it.
She was not selected for the jury.  This is also used as a way to get out of jury duty.  If you are demonstrative or belligerent, you won't make the jury and the court says "you have served you jury duty, thank you very much" and you are off the hook.

Larryj

[Diane Amberg]

Like I said.....Ya don't like the law change it! But I don't agree with going off on a personal agenda at a trial to do it. It's stressful enough as it is. You want to do something about what the judge says, petition the court, your legislators, or do what needs to be done so the judges, all of them, say the same thing at the beginning of all trials, not just the one you happen to be sitting on and have a beef with.

[srkruzich]

Like I said.....Ya don't like the law change it! But I don't agree with going off on a personal agenda at a trial to do it. It's stressful enough as it is. You want to do something about what the judge says, petition the court, your legislators, or do what needs to be done so the judges, all of them, say the same thing at the beginning of all trials, not just the one you happen to be sitting on and have a beef with.

Or exercise my duty and right as juror to judge not only the facts and evidence but the law being used.  IF the law is unfair or unjust, then we have a duty to nullify the law.

[Varmit]

Our Constitution is clear on this point.  Juries have the right of nullification.  What is the point of a trial by jury of your peers if they're decision can be overturned or their rights not fully enforced?  To me it is just another way for Courts and Judges to maintain a power that they shouldn't have.  As for changing the law by petitioning the gov't, and legislators...if they actually listened to "We the People" then that would be a reasonable course of action, however they don't. 

As for judges not fully informing juries....this should not be based on anything but protocol and procedure.  Frankly, I think that the jury selection process is flawed.  People chosen for jury duty should be asked only three questions 1)  Are you a legal citizen of the United States? 2) Do you speak and understand english fluently? 3) Are there any medical or other issues (such as the recent or coming birth of a child) that would prevent you from serving on this jury?