Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Justice Scalia believes that -
jurors “can ignore the law” if the law “is producing a terrible result.”
An 1895 Supreme Court ruling said judges are not required to inform juries of this right.
A retired chemistry professor was charged(incorrectly) with jury tampering because he stood outside a courthouse distributing information, telling people about this right.
Are most people aware, that as jurors, they can find contrary to the advice of the judge and also contrary to the current law?
Justice Scalia believes that -
jurors “can ignore the law” if the law “is producing a terrible result.”
An 1895 Supreme Court ruling said judges are not required to inform juries of this right.
A retired chemistry professor was charged(incorrectly) with jury tampering because he stood outside a courthouse distributing information, telling people about this right.
Are most people aware, that as jurors, they can find contrary to the advice of the judge and also contrary to the current law?
Very few Americans actually seem to know about their nullification rights. Judges and prosecuting attorneys are absolutely allergic to any mention of nullification, and the average person never hears about it.
It's a very powerful tool when it actually gets used. Some of the more idiotic prosecutions of recent years (internet poker, etc.) are only viable because of poorly-informed jurors who erroneously think that they "must" convict if the evidence points to a violation of law, even if they themselves disagree with the law in the first place.
Most people don't even know what jury nullification is, or they have it backwards. I heard a lot of people complaining about "jury nullification" after that stupid Casey Anthony trial circus. That just shows you how much people know about the subject.
I've know about it for years and it's a very powerful process.
I can assure you I would go that route on several cases. Drug trials would be one. Others would include include someone on trial for filming LE in a public place, and certain LE invasions of privacy.
Grand things have happened in this country because the average citizen decided that that certain laws were not correct.
It's hard--there are cases in which I would exercise nullification as a juror, but I think most Americans would use it in all the wrong cases, so it's hard for me to favor it as a rule.
Very few Americans actually seem to know about their nullification rights. Judges and prosecuting attorneys are absolutely allergic to any mention of nullification, and the average person never hears about it.
It's a very powerful tool when it actually gets used. Some of the more idiotic prosecutions of recent years (internet poker, etc.) are only viable because of poorly-informed jurors who erroneously think that they "must" convict if the evidence points to a violation of law, even if they themselves disagree with the law in the first place.
The prosecutors want dumb sheeple who are ignorant of nullification. But nevertheless, we the people have this right. Crooked prosecutors can stuff it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
I've know about it for years and it's a very powerful process.
I can assure you I would go that route on several cases. Drug trials would be one. Others would include include someone on trial for filming LE in a public place, and certain LE invasions of privacy.
Same here on those cases. I welcome the opportunity to serve on those juries.
Most people serving on a jury are intimidated by the process, and assume that they are subservient to the court. Few people realize that jury nullification has a long and noble history in our legal system.
It goes back to at least 1735, when John Zenger was accused of sedition for publishing a pamphlet which was critical of King George II. The jury in New York Colony found him innocent, in spite of the fact that the proceedings had been stacked against him.
In 1794, John Jay, the first Chief Justice of The Supreme Court told a jury:
Quote:
You, [the jury], have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy... both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.
Jury nullification was used frequently in the mid-nineteenth century to invalidate charges against abolitionists who violated The Fugitive Slave Act. Without it, putting an end to government-sanctioned slavery in The United States would have been an even more difficult battle than it was.
Indiana, Maryland, and Georgia, have laws which require judges to inform juries of their right to nullify. The fact that most jurisdictions and the federal courts do not require such notice be given, is indicative of the fear that our government seems to have of power actually resting with the people.
It's hard--there are cases in which I would exercise nullification as a juror, but I think most Americans would use it in all the wrong cases, so it's hard for me to favor it as a rule.
And how do you determine which ones are the wrong cases?
I would definitely use jury nullification for any drug charges if I were to serve on a jury.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
