On Jury Nullification

This forum is for discussion of politics, diplomacy, law, and justice
User avatar
skb12172
Posts: 7310
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:45 am

On Jury Nullification

Post by skb12172 »

Excellent article…

Linkarooni

Recently, a couple who had rescued a deer and nursed it back to good health — only for the state of Indiana to charge them with a misdemeanor and a jail sentence of 60 days. It’s quite the conundrum – they broke the law, but to punish a man for acting righteously is the height of wickedness. In the Bible, God annihilates the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for such depravity. If it were a felony offense, the couple would be put before a jury, who must decide only on the facts of the case, on whether they committed the alleged crimes.

Except that last sentence is false. The entire legal system has conspired to keep jurors blind to one of their most powerful privileges – that they judge the facts AND the law. If a juror accepts that the person on trial did indeed violate the law, the juror may still return a finding of ‘not guilty’ because they consider the law unjust. This right is known as jury nullification. It has had a long and storied history; famously, a man was accused of sedition in New York in 1735, while it was still under the control of the British crown. There was no question that he, John Peter Zenger, had violated the law, with his truthful criticism of the government. But the jury returned a verdict of ‘not guilty’ because they deemed the law unjust.

In the years before the American Civil War, juries in the North refused to convict runaway slaves under the ‘Fugitive Slave Act,’ because they believed escaping bondage was not a crime. Jury nullification has also been practiced in Canada and the United Kingdom.

The Government Cover-Up

In 1794, in the case of Georgia v. Brailsford, the US Supreme Court ruled that judges were obligated to inform jurors of their right to jury nullification. A hundred years later, in Sparf v. United States, the Court ruled that judges were not obligated to tell the jury of their rights to judge the law. Later rulings would affirm the right of the courts to bar the defense from telling jurors that they could use jury nullification. A 1997 ruling held that a juror can be removed if he intends to use jury nullification; a 2001 California Supreme Court ruling involving a statutory rape case held that jurors must effectively snitch when a fellow panelist is opting for jury nullification.

In 1994, the courts in Colorado ended up going on a witch hunt after a woman started arguing for jury nullification to her fellow jurors. She turned out to have a drug-related sentence, 12 years prior, which she had not been asked about during jury selection. The government charged her with perjury, for not disclosing her prior drug sentence, even though she answered all jury selection questions truthfully. Said Clay Conrad, author of a book on jury nullification, “It is obvious from the context of the entire case they prosecuted her for her verdict. If they can punish jurors for their verdicts, the jury system is just a living fossil brought out to harm people. There is nothing left if jurors can’t be independent and vote their own consciences.”

To use jury nullification is to ‘obstruct justice’ these judges held, shredding the power of jury nullification. The court tried to convict her of perjury based on things she said during jury deliberations, deliberations which may not be used in court proceedings so that jurors can speak candidly among themselves when making decisions.

I asked an older lawyer friend of mine about jury nullification, and he steadfastly denied that what I was proposing was legal. I asked another friend who is an attorney, and he had never heard of it, despite a successful career. In fact, federal prosecutors indicted a man for telling people about jury nullification, saying that “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without Constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.” In other words, the feds were too happy to baldly suppress free speech, in the case of a retired chemistry professor handing out pamphlets on juror rights. Thankfully, he was acquitted.

Honest, accurate coverage of jury nullification is the exception, not the rule. For a captivating illustration of jury nullification, see this brief work, by the illustrator of the internet sensation ‘Go The F**K To Sleep.’ Noted libertarian Ron Paul is also a prominent advocate of jury nullification.

What You Can Do

The next time you hear some self-righteous jackass ask if you voted, ask them if they know what ‘jury nullification’ is. While your election votes will probably never make a difference, your vote in a jury trial in a criminal case is decisive—a guilty verdict is required from all twelve jurors. Without your assent to his guilt, the defendant cannot be convicted.

You must look to your own beliefs to decide when jury nullification is appropriate. But it’s not hard to imagine them:

The War on Drugs - someone is on trial for felony possession of marijuana: not guilty
Domestic Violence - A man is facing jail time for slapping his wife after she was caught cheating on him: not guilty
The Right To Bear Arms - A woman is charged with illegal weapons possession after confronting a mugger with a handgun, in a city where it is impossible for a law-abiding citizen to legally carry a firearm on his person: not guilty
Self-Defense - A homeowner is charged with murder for shooting a burglar: not guilty
Sexual Assault - A man is charged with sexual assault for not using a condom during sex: not guilty
Assault - A man is charged for punching a woman who physically started a fight with him: not guilty
Child Support - A man is charged for non-payment of child support for a woman who lied about being on the pill and refused to get an abortion: not guilty
Statutory Rape - A 17 year old male turns 18 and continues to sleep with his 17 year old girlfriend, and then gets charged with statutory rape: not guilty
In short, if a defendant committed something you don’t consider a punishable crime, and you believe it would be a violation of your conscience to convict the defendant, you simply vote ‘not guilty.’ Outcome: either the jury is hung, giving the defendant another trial, or the defendant is acquitted completely. I cannot think of any other power you have a citizen that is as easy, potent and immediate as jury nullification.
This poor woman was charged and convicted on trumped up charges in Colorado, 20 years ago, to punish her for educating her fellow jurors. Fortunately, her conviction was overturned. WTF… :evil:
There must be an end to this intimidation by those who come to this great country, but reject its culture.
User avatar
308Mike
Posts: 16537
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 3:47 pm

Re: On Jury Nullification

Post by 308Mike »

As has been said MANY times, and for MANY years; "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"!!!!

You do as you believe, and you might have to pay for your beliefs - but I prefer that kind of friend than a fair-weather friend, more the type of Obummer-style (who have no values or moral compass).
POLITICIANS & DIAPERS NEED TO BE CHANGED OFTEN AND FOR THE SAME REASON

A person properly schooled in right and wrong is safe with any weapon. A person with no idea of good and evil is unsafe with a knitting needle, or the cap from a ballpoint pen.

I remain pessimistic given the way BATF and the anti gun crowd have become tape worms in the guts of the Republic. - toad
User avatar
PawPaw
Posts: 4493
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: On Jury Nullification

Post by PawPaw »

I'm a big fan of jury nullification. It's the jury's obligation to judge the facts, and the law.
Dennis Dezendorf
PawPaw's House
User avatar
308Mike
Posts: 16537
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 3:47 pm

Re: On Jury Nullification

Post by 308Mike »

PawPaw wrote:I'm a big fan of jury nullification. It's the jury's obligation to judge the facts, and the law.
DAMNED STRAIGHT!!!!
POLITICIANS & DIAPERS NEED TO BE CHANGED OFTEN AND FOR THE SAME REASON

A person properly schooled in right and wrong is safe with any weapon. A person with no idea of good and evil is unsafe with a knitting needle, or the cap from a ballpoint pen.

I remain pessimistic given the way BATF and the anti gun crowd have become tape worms in the guts of the Republic. - toad
User avatar
Netpackrat
Posts: 13580
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: On Jury Nullification

Post by Netpackrat »

If the only thing to be judged is the facts of a case, then what we really need are panels of experts to go over the evidence, not a semi-random grouping of strangers coerced in from the streets. It would certainly be more efficient, and probably a lot more accurate. But, we DO have a system that requires the case to be heard by a jury of the accused's peers, who are not selected on the basis of knowledge or deductive ability. It isn't very efficient and it is a major pain in the ass for everybody involved. Yet, we persist in this antiquated system for some reason. I wonder why that is?
Cognosce teipsum et disce pati

"People come and go in our lives, especially the online ones. Some leave a fond memory, and some a bad taste." -Aesop
User avatar
Termite
Posts: 8973
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:32 am

Re: On Jury Nullification

Post by Termite »

There are several SCOTUS decisions upholding the right of jury nullification. However, SCOTUS has also held that the jury does not have to be told of their right to judge both the law and the facts.
If a criminal defense attorney has not heard of jury nullification, he should get a swift kick in the ass.

While many know of it, most are loathe to attempt to tell the jury in open court because they risk either a contempt of court citation, or the judge declaring a mistrial.

FIJA

And welcome to the party, SKB. ;)
"Life is a bitch. Shit happens. Adapt, improvise, and overcome. Acknowledge it, and move on."
User avatar
Guncrazy
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:50 pm

Re: On Jury Nullification

Post by Guncrazy »

I sometimes wonder if my long-time advocacy of jury nullification is the reason I've never been called for jury duty.

On the other hand, my wife, who is not a US citizen, has received a jury eligibility survey...
Aesop
Posts: 6149
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:17 am

Re: On Jury Nullification

Post by Aesop »

Jury nullification has existed, and always will, as long as they press-gang juries.

The key to making it stick is not to mention what you're doing, nor do an end-zone dance afterwards.
"I still am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of Accused's guilt."
Period. Paragraph. End.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Your reasons, like Sir Thomas More's, need not be stated, and in fact such exposition is detrimental to your objectives.
Let the buttheads wonder.
"There are four types of homicide: felonious, accidental, justifiable, and praiseworthy." -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
User avatar
PawPaw
Posts: 4493
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: On Jury Nullification

Post by PawPaw »

I defer to the wisdom of no less than Mark Twain, who argued;
in [i]Roughing It[/i] wrote:The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty, and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity and perjury. It is a shame that we must continue to use a worthless system because it was good a thousand years ago...I desire to tamper with the jury law. I wish to so alter it as to put a premium on intelligence and character, and close the jury box against idiots, blacklegs, and people who do not read newspapers. But no doubt I shall be defeated--every effort I make to save the country "misses fire."
An intelligent juror (but that's an oxymoron) will keep his thoughts to himself during the trial and only broach the idea nullification while in the confines of the jury room.
Dennis Dezendorf
PawPaw's House
User avatar
George guy
Posts: 952
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:53 pm

Re: On Jury Nullification

Post by George guy »

PawPaw wrote:
An intelligent juror (but that's an oxymoron) will keep his thoughts to himself during the trial and only broach the idea nullification while in the confines of the jury room.
Word. Last time I got called, there was a very disappointing man:

Judge: Are you prepared to give a verdict according to the law as I give it to you?
That Guy: Umm, can you clarify that?
Judge: For example, it doesn't matter whether you think certain drugs should be illegal, could you give a guilty verdict on a drug possession charge?
That Guy: No sir, I could not.
Judge: Thank you, you are dismissed.
Me: (thinking) Well, bravo, good man for taking a principled stand on a position that has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SUIT. I bet you've got a Ron Paul sticker.
He did.
'Regulate' used to mean the opposite of 'constipate.'
Post Reply