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
So what is your point? Have you ever sat on a jury? In California? I wonder what Mike Huckabee thinks now? (oops!)
Did you understand it? I've been on a jury. Huckabee is not much different than most other politicians.
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.
Not sure what he's driving at?? :o 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.
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
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".
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
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.
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.
All the better reason not to get caught up in the system. Ya can't pay, don't play.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on December 05, 2009, 10:16:17 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Varmit on December 07, 2009, 05:45:20 AM
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))
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
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.
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
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.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on December 07, 2009, 12:56:16 PM
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.
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?
So it's OK if I happen to be a relative or an employee of the accused?
how else are guys like OJ supposed to get off for murder?
Quote from: Anmar on December 08, 2009, 04:26:35 PM
how else are guys like OJ supposed to get off for murder?
Sorry but OJ bought his aquittal from the powers that be. In that high profile case, most likely the jury was tampered with.
Here's something about "jury nullification" that I received from a friend in another county:
"I just had lunch at out Rotary Club with one of our local judges. He said this principle (jury nullification) is real. He called it 'a dirty little secret' that the courts don't want the jury members to know. He further stated that the defense or prosecution lawyers aren't allowed to question the reasons for the finding by the jury, so the principle can be applied with impunity."
Quote from: Diane Amberg on December 08, 2009, 11:35:55 AM
So it's OK if I happen to be a relative or an employee of the accused?
Good point Diane. There should be four questions asked, 3 previously stated and 4) Is your Oath or Affirmation (i.e. your word of Honor) actually worth the time it took to give it?
More.......good read
"I Don't Care What The Judge Said!"
http://www.mykidsdeservebetter.com/welfare-state/the-mad-war-on-drugs/i-dont-care-what-the-judge-said-the-morally-obscene-war-on-drugs
Then change the law! This if "they" did this, then"they'll" do that logic assumes people will do things just because they can. I don't find that to be true.
Diane, your logic might hold water if every law was brought before the american people before it was signed into law. Juries have a right to nullification. Any judge who doesn't inform them of this should be removed from the bench.
How? The court systems are already bogged down. Was that piece written by by a high school student as an assignment or was it real? There are some things about it that don't ring true.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on December 16, 2009, 11:09:11 AM
Then change the law! This if "they" did this, then"they'll" do that logic assumes people will do things just because they can. I don't find that to be true.
It is true. I won't convict someone in a jury if the law is a unjust law. I'll hang the jury if need be. Don't care what the judge says either. He has no right to tell me I can't judge a law.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on December 17, 2009, 01:52:28 PM
How? The court systems are already bogged down. Was that piece written by by a high school student as an assignment or was it real? There are some things about it that don't ring true.
Diane, I'm only 48 and I have known about jury nullification and have used it in about half of the juries i have served on. Given the example in the article, that fella on trial was facing 20 years for a joint. I would not condemn this man and take 20 years of his life for a joint. Sorry, its morally wrong even more than his violation of the law.
We hear it all the time people bitching about how a murderer can get less time than someone stealing. Why is that? The law is wrong. Murderes can get out in 7 years on their sentence while a fellow like that recent guy uhmm Bernie madoff got 140 years and will never get out. Why? He stole money. Money is not taking a life. So our forefathers were very wise men and knew that we would face tyrannical laws and gave us the power to stop these laws in their tracks. Oh and the reason why the judges don't tell us is, they cannot nullify jury nullification and they cannot remove it from our constitutional rights unless they destroy the constitution which cannot be done because they cannot amend anything written in the constittuion prior to 1800.