Legal Minds weigh in- Jury Nullification

[M1911]

That old tenet "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

Thread hijack: that tenet made sense at one time. It no longer makes any sense. No one knows how many federal laws there (many, many thousands), let alone what all of them are. We've got no way of knowing whether or not we are inadvertently committing some federal crime, since so many of these laws and regulations no longer require any criminal intent.

 

[Boghog1]

so in this Case RKG and Terraformer

Corporal Melroy H. Cort, who lost his knees to an improvised bomb in Ramadi, Iraq, was en route to Walter Reed Hospital from his home in Columbus, Ohio, when his car got a flat. He and his wife, Samantha, pulled over for repairs, at which time Cort, who has a concealed carry permit at home, retrieved his 9mm pistol from his glove compartment and put it in his pocket.

Cort's gun was spotted by somebody who called police, and Cort rapidly gained an education in D.C.'s notoriously strict firearms laws. He was charged with carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm and possession of ammunition.

would you find him guilty and sentence him to jail time?

 

[n1oty]

Thread hijack: that tenet made sense at one time. It no longer makes any sense. No one knows how many federal laws there (many, many thousands), let alone what all of them are. We've got no way of knowing whether or not we are inadvertently committing some federal crime, since so many of these laws and regulations no longer require any criminal intent.

And this may be one of a myriad of reasons why the nullification topic comes up, so I do not see this as a thread hijack at all. It is peripherally related. The concept of intent is a central tenet of our older, traditional crimes. The last couple of decades in particular have seen an explosion of administrative crimes for which knowledge and intent are no longer required. Very frustrating.

 

[RKG]

. . . every juror is going to have to decide where they draw their moral line..

I'm unable to see the difference between this and anarchy.

 

[Jose]

I'm unable to see the difference between this and anarchy.

That is because you believe individuals are unable to agree to a standard of morality without the coercion of law.

You are wrong about that, BTW.

 

[RKG]

You just don't seem to understand the jury system. The jury's job is not to be a pro-forma rubber-stamp for the State's theory of a case. The jury is an important part of the system, with the real power to decide the facts.

Let me state it more explicitly: When the prosecutor's and/or judge's theories, opinions, presentations, assertions, etc. about a given case are in opposition to the jury finding, then the prosecutor and/or judge is factually wrong.

After thirty-odd years of trying jury cases, I'd be the first to admit that I don't understand -- or at least completely understand -- the jury system.

On the other hand, you might want to spend a few minutes reflecting on the difference between "facts" and "opinions."

 

[RKG]

so in this Case RKG and Terraformer



would you find him guilty and sentence him to jail time?

1) He is guilty of violating the law.

2) If the law is "bad" for any reason, the thing to do is to get it changed (either through the legislative process or by challenging its constitutionality), not by having it effectively repealed in selective cases because randomly selected jurors disagree with the societal collective.

3) Sentencing is up to the judge, not the jury, and it is based on a bunch of factors that do not include whether the (now convicted) defendant was "guilty" of the offense.

In the OJ case, a bunch of jurors decided that murder is OK if it is committed by a narcissistic black man who was poorly treated by society in general before being scorned by his white wife. While this thread implies I'm in the minority for thinking so, I do not believe the jury had the "right" to do this, or that it is good for the society in which we all must live. While neither I nor anyone else can be completely certain, there is some warrant for concluding that this experience taught OJ that it would later be also OK for him to get a bunch of armed pals and go out and commit an armed robbery.

 

[Boghog1]

In the OJ case, a bunch of jurors decided that murder is OK if it is committed by a narcissistic black man who was poorly treated by society in general before being scorned by his white wife. While this thread implies I'm in the minority for thinking so, I do not believe the jury had the "right" to do this, or that it is good for the society in which we all must live. While neither I nor anyone else can be completely certain, there is some warrant for concluding that this experience taught OJ that it would later be also OK for him to get a bunch of armed pals and go out and commit an armed robbery.

OJ was not jury nullification, not one juror said or implied that they thought murder was ok or that they were convinced he did it, they had reasonable doubt. the prosecutor and police did a poor job and the defense did a good job. they were instructed with the "beyond a reasonable doubt", when a blood soaked glove doesn't fit I can have a reasonable doubt he didn't do it.

 

[Bill Nance]

1) He is guilty of violating the law.

2) If the law is "bad" for any reason, the thing to do is to get it changed (either through the legislative process or by challenging its constitutionality), not by having it effectively repealed in selective cases because randomly selected jurors disagree with the societal collective.

3) Sentencing is up to the judge, not the jury, and it is based on a bunch of factors that do not include whether the (now convicted) defendant was "guilty" of the offense.

In the OJ case, a bunch of jurors decided that murder is OK if it is committed by a narcissistic black man who was poorly treated by society in general before being scorned by his white wife. While this thread implies I'm in the minority for thinking so, I do not believe the jury had the "right" to do this, or that it is good for the society in which we all must live. While neither I nor anyone else can be completely certain, there is some warrant for concluding that this experience taught OJ that it would later be also OK for him to get a bunch of armed pals and go out and commit an armed robbery.

OJ was not jury nullification, not one juror said or implied that they thought murder was ok or that they were convinced he did it, they had reasonable doubt. the prosecutor and police did a poor job and the defense did a good job. they were instructed with the "beyond a reasonable doubt", when a blood soaked glove doesn't fit I can have a reasonable doubt he didn't do it.

In fairness, no jury admits to nullification whether or not they did it. I sure as Hell woudn't. It would only guarantee the verdict is thrown out for juror misconduct and the guy would be tried again.

I think OJ is an example of the most incredibly inept prosecution of all time. I was out of work t the time of the trial. With nothing else to do I watched just about the entire thing. If I'd been on that jury I wouldn't have voted to convict either. I certainly had reasonable doubts, which is all it takes.

But let's say for the sake of argument that it WAS nullification, to send a message to the LAPD that the community was sick to death of the way the LAPD was treating the black community. (And it was in all fairness pretty bad, pretty much all the time).

We know that after that trial a whole lot changed. Not least of which was the forced retirement of Darryl Gates and the adoption of a boatload of reforms at the LAPD. One really bad actor was on the streets and the reforms were desperately needed and would not have happened outside that verdict IMO. We let guilty people go all the time over technicalities that are fairly trivial in nature. Judges routinely hand out ridiculously short sentences for serious crimes. Are you seriously telling us that juries would set so many really awful criminals loose that it could begin to compare with what judges do every day all over the country?

I mean seriously, every time I read parole and child molester in the same sentence I already know what happened.

Since juries don't (and I agree shouldn't) determine sentences, but only guilty or not guilty, I'm seeing a lot less danger for the community and a lot more danger to the successful prosecution of non-crimes than you are RKG. Nothing is perfect. Not by a long shot. I see the good outweighing the bad by a pretty wide margin on this issue.

 

[terraformer]

so in this Case RKG and Terraformer



would you find him guilty and sentence him to jail time?

I would do what's right.

 

[Boghog1]

I would do what's right.

What is "right"

 

[Auspicious Aspect]

After thirty-odd years of trying jury cases, I'd be the first to admit that I don't understand -- or at least completely understand -- the jury system.

On the other hand, you might want to spend a few minutes reflecting on the difference between "facts" and "opinions."

If you are an attorney, then your attitude is more understandable. Some attorneys are frightened by the idea of an independent jury and see it as an attack on their role as gatekeepers of arcane knowledge, and therefore an attack on their economic well being. Please don't take it personally; I am not out to break anyone's rice bowl.

You have to remember that the court system is completely unrelated to what goes on outside the court; not to any objective reality, and not to justice. Bearing that in mind, in a US court, a fact is an opinion that has been given the weight of the legal system. Determining such fact from mere opinion is the task of the jury.

In the OJ case, a bunch of jurors decided that murder is OK if it is committed by a narcissistic black man who was poorly treated by society in general before being scorned by his white wife. While this thread implies I'm in the minority for thinking so, I do not believe the jury had the "right" to do this, or that it is good for the society in which we all must live. While neither I nor anyone else can be completely certain, there is some warrant for concluding that this experience taught OJ that it would later be also OK for him to get a bunch of armed pals and go out and commit an armed robbery.

In the OJ case, a bunch of jurors decided that when some officers tried to manipulate and "sweeten" the evidence, they so corrupted the investigation that the case could not stand. If the cops had just worked with what they had, OJ would probably have been convicted.

 

[center442]

Thread hijack: that tenet made sense at one time. It no longer makes any sense. No one knows how many federal laws there (many, many thousands), let alone what all of them are. We've got no way of knowing whether or not we are inadvertently committing some federal crime, since so many of these laws and regulations no longer require any criminal intent.

And this may be one of a myriad of reasons why the nullification topic comes up, so I do not see this as a thread hijack at all. It is peripherally related. The concept of intent is a central tenet of our older, traditional crimes. The last couple of decades in particular have seen an explosion of administrative crimes for which knowledge and intent are no longer required. Very frustrating.

Yep. I doubt if it's possible for the average citizen in this country to go through a day without violating several laws. Add in regulations, and you're probably up to several dozen. Something is definitely wrong with this.

I'm unable to see the difference between this and anarchy.

I was brought up with the belief that the law is the law. For many years I believed that. Now I see people being subjected to sanctions for "crimes" where I cannot find a victim. I see laws being enforced that are more about political correctness and social engineering than about actually causing harm to people or property. Maybe NES has radicalized me?

My change in attitude started a few years ago with gun issues. It has since spread to other areas. I'm not advocating anarchy or nullifying all laws. I'm not advocating mob rule. I've served on three juries and never felt the need to nullify the laws in those cases. But if I were to be seated as a juror on a case where I truly believed the law in question was unjust, then I would not vote to convict, even if there was no doubt that the accused was guilty of breaking that law. Perhaps that makes me an anarchist; I don't really know.

Threads like this do make folks think, don't they?

 

[terraformer]

What is "right"

If you think you are getting more from me, you are an idiot. I have 2 choices here based on your question. Say I would convict someone based on this tiny snippet of information or admit to wanting to commit a federal crime. I am smart enough not to play. You can take that however way you want and you can assume whatever you want from my answer.

 

[Boghog1]

how is jury nullification a federal crime?

 

[terraformer]

In the OJ case, a bunch of jurors decided that murder is OK if it is committed by a narcissistic black man who was poorly treated by society in general before being scorned by his white wife. While this thread implies I'm in the minority for thinking so, I do not believe the jury had the "right" to do this, or that it is good for the society in which we all must live. While neither I nor anyone else can be completely certain, there is some warrant for concluding that this experience taught OJ that it would later be also OK for him to get a bunch of armed pals and go out and commit an armed robbery.

In the OJ case, a bunch of jurors decided that when some officers tried to manipulate and "sweeten" the evidence, they so corrupted the investigation that the case could not stand. If the cops had just worked with what they had, OJ would probably have been convicted.

At the end of the day, the OJ case also had forensic evidence (DNA) that up until that point had never been used to convict somebody. There were a lot of possible reasons the jury reached the verdict it did. Probably the least likely answer is some type of moralistic jury nullification. It was more likely a lot of doubt created by the glove, the DNA, a bungling forensics team and what the jurors had every right to believe based on the evidence presented was a racist lead detective.

 

[terraformer]

Think carefully: jury nullification is a violation of a juror's oath, and while it is true that a nullification verdict cannot be appealed by the prosecution, a juror who can be proved to have violated his oath is subject to prosecution.

how is jury nullification a federal crime?

^ and your example had him on trial in DC.

 

[Boghog1]

yes my example had him on trial in DC because that is where the case actually occurred. He was found not guilty even though the evidence overwhelmingly showed he was indeed in possession of a firearm in DC. it is also interesting since it was later determined by the USSC that the law was unconstitutional.

I can take an oath but I can also refuse to take an oath, just like I can refuse an illegal search. the power of jury nullification is not something that I would throw around flippantly but it is a right within my use if I am a juror, the judge nor anyone has a right to question the verdict I return. and the right to a trial by jury is part of the constitution. this is what happens when rights are not exercised we lose them.

 

[Half Cocked]

On the other hand, you might want to spend a few minutes reflecting on the difference between "facts" and "opinions."

Exactly!

 

[Cato]

I must say, I don't see a lot of difference between a juror deciding not to apply the law to a defendant who has violated it and a President deciding not to enforce the immigration laws because he doesn't like what they say.

The difference is that former is the master and the later is the servant.

How do you propose to keep government within the limits of the contract by which it was established if the people themselves do not possess a "veto" power? Constitutions are worthless to restrain tyranny unless it is understood that the people will, by force if necessary, make the government keep within the constitutional limits. The jury system along with nullification is the power to veto all oppressive legislation. If nullification was practiced more often legislators would be more thoughtful with regard to individual rights before passing unjust laws simply to have them voided by juries.

The only valid reason for government to exist is to protect the life, liberty and property of the individual. But governments become corrupt and this purpose is often ignored. Laws are enacted that violate this principal by law makers with corrupt motives.

Life liberty and property should never be taken from someone unless justice requires it. In order to assure that justice prevails only a jury of one's peers can make that decision. And if in the jury's opinion the law itself is unjust then the jury must have the power to veto that law and to protect the life liberty and property of the accused.

 

[terraformer]

yes my example had him on trial in DC because that is where the case actually occurred. He was found not guilty even though the evidence overwhelmingly showed he was indeed in possession of a firearm in DC. it is also interesting since it was later determined by the USSC that the law was unconstitutional.

I can take an oath but I can also refuse to take an oath, just like I can refuse an illegal search. the power of jury nullification is not something that I would throw around flippantly but it is a right within my use if I am a juror, the judge nor anyone has a right to question the verdict I return. and the right to a trial by jury is part of the constitution. this is what happens when rights are not exercised we lose them.

One important part that is wrong with what you said, you don't have a right (as the courts define it) to jury nullification nor does the judge have to, based on federal court case law (though nothing from SCOTUS to my knowledge) on the subject, respect that power. If a juror openly claims to be disregarding the law, they can be removed and it may not even make the case instantly appealable. And if go back and read what I wrote to Jose, you will see his binary recasting of what I wrote belied the more subtle point that the judge has no effective way of removing you from a jury without cause. Claiming you are nullifying the verdict by ignoring the law hands the judge that cause on silver platter with a nice red bow.

In other words, if one wants to exercise the power, you had better be smart about how or you will fail to achieve your goals.

 

[Half Cocked]

I think the difference is that one should look at every case on it's individual merits and decide how they would rule. I just think that people should not make a blanket statement that they would never convict someone for certain crimes. Which.... in my opinion is the admirable thing to do.

My guess is that many would not convict a 17 year old boy for "rape of a child" where he was found having "consensual" sex with his 15 year old girlfriend..... but they would convict a 45 year old man for "rape of a child" where he was found having sex with a 3 year old girl.

One should apply his own logic/beliefs to the individual facts/circumstances to the crime without making a statement that he would "never convict anyone for the crime of "rape of a child".

 

[economist]

I think the difference is that one should look at every case on it's individual merits and decide how they would rule. I just think that people should not make a blanket statement that they would never convict someone for certain crimes. Which.... in my opinion is the admirable thing to do.

My guess is that many would not convict a 17 year old boy for "rape of a child" where he was found having "consensual" sex with his 15 year old girlfriend..... but they would convict a 45 year old man for "rape of a child" where he was found having sex with a 3 year old girl.

One should apply his own logic/beliefs to the individual facts/circumstances to the crime without making a statement that he would "never convict anyone for the crime of "rape of a child".

Some laws are so bad that they shouldn't apply to anyone, which is why "blanket statements" can be made. You could dig up Jeffrey Dahmer, install Stalin's pickled brain, and reanimate the corpse, but if you dragged that stinking mess into a courtroom and charged it with nothing but possession of a post-ban high capacity magazine in Massachusetts then my vote is to acquit.

 

[Boghog1]

I think the main focus of the bill or rights was to prevent oppression by a corrupt government, hence the right to a trial by a jury of ones peers and preventing that jury from judging the law is tantamount to preventing newspaper from printing articles the government doesn't like.

 

[Jose]

2) If the law is "bad" for any reason, the thing to do is to get it changed (either through the legislative process or by challenging its constitutionality), not by having it effectively

The mechanisms of which you speak more and more fail to represent the true voice of the people, and while those government-approved methods grind through the process, more people continue to be victims of unjust laws.

No thank you.

 

[Jose]

Can anyone here cite any federal statute that forbids jury nullification?

 

[lupis42]

The mechanisms of which you speak more and more fail to represent the true voice of the people, and while those government-approved methods grind through the process, more people continue to be victims of unjust laws.

No thank you.

Which is why the four boxes are meant to be used in order. Jury is still preferable to Ammo.

 

[LKB3rd]

Can anyone here cite any federal statute that forbids jury nullification?

Pretty sure that would be a state issue.

 

[center442]

Can anyone here cite any federal statute that forbids jury nullification?

I don't think there are any. In fact, given our history, I'd be surprised if there were.

Back when we were colonies, Great Britain passed some decrees that colonists charged with certain crimes had to be transported to England for trial there. The reason was that juries in the Colonies wouldn't convict for certain crimes because they believed the underlying laws were unjust. This is alluded to in the Declaration of Independence with the following line: "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury." I don't know if the term jury nullification even existed back then, but it was certainly being practiced.

Those old-timers understood that courts were about laws and juries were about justice.

 

[M1911]

On the other hand, you might want to spend a few minutes reflecting on the difference between "facts" and "opinions."

There is a certain Kabuki-theater-like aspect to our legal system as described to me by several lawyers, including my sister. There is an assertion in the legal community that the law is almost deterministic, where once the facts are found, that the laws are applied to those facts like a mathematical formula, and out comes the reproducible result -- a guilty or not guilty decision.

But I assert that is just the mythology of our legal system. The law cannot be, and never is, applied that way to the set of facts. This can be easily seen by reading the opposing arguments in recent SCOTUS decisions, like Heller and MacDonald. The judges in the minority on those decisions did not decide the case based on some logical application of the law. They decided the case based on their opinions and prejudices. Then they tortuously tried to contort their interpretation of the law into some logical framework to justify their decision. And those are not some exceptional decisions; this happens all the time.

Expecting juries to behave differently is not very realistic, IMHO.

I think the difference is that one should look at every case on it's individual merits and decide how they would rule. I just think that people should not make a blanket statement that they would never convict someone for certain crimes. Which.... in my opinion is the admirable thing to do.

That is why I said that "I would find it hard to convict..." Some other folks have made more blanket statements.

We have had laws that were unjust, and that juries often nullified. For example, during Prohibition, juries nullified alcohol control laws more often than not. Was that a bad thing for society? I don't think so.

Yes, I may use jury nullification if I consider a law to be unjust. Some folks here suggest that doing so would be promoting anarchy. This is no more anarchy than a soldier refusing to follow an illegal order -- the same principle applies. I won't do what I consider to be an immoral act just because the State tells me to do so, and yes, different people will come to a different conclusion about what is and is not moral.