Guy arrested for handing out pamphlets on jury nullifaction at courthouse. Guilty of jury tampering?

[Acid Lamp]

Since I'm not a lawyer, I'm going to let the cites of the previous posters set precedence, and the legal eagles can quibble about it if they like. It seems clear to me that there is a long history of juries having the power and responsibility to consider each case in the exact manner I have suggested. Leaving the power "to the experts" (paraphrasing) as one poster suggested is probably the worst idea I've ever heard. You are presupposing guilt, and basically making the statement that a trial is a mere formality. Though the current system is becoming more aderversarial by the minute, we still have the right to presumed innocence in all matters of the court until convicted. Convicted by a group of regular citizens, who have the charge to consider the individual merits of the case. While drawing bright lines is necessary for drafting laws, juries alone, with perhaps only the supreme court, have the right to interpret the spirit of the law. a power that is significant regardless of the verdict it returns. They in effect are the causation of case law and precedent, not lawmakers.

[Morgenstern]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, except things that piss us or our agents off will be illegal, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Careful between the line reading of the 1st Amendment clearly shows this as illegal.

[manila]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

The ghost of Emmett Till thinks jury nullification sucks. I'd be willing to bet his mother feels the same way.

Am reading the wiki link ( and plowing through the numerous wiki sub-links) and at the moment I only have WTF! to say.

I will respond more fully later but initially am thinking that this is a racism sickness rather than an intrinsic fault with jury nullification.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

I will come back again in a while an post some examples of Jury nullification that made sense. Sure their are cases, like your Emmett Till case, that was a miscarriage of justice, but in the main jury nullification can be a good thing.

John Peter Zenger? Fugitive slave cases?

[robertliguori]

Originally Posted by manila

Am reading the wiki link ( and plowing through the numerous wiki sub-links) and at the moment I only have WTF! to say.

I will respond more fully later but initially am thinking that this is a racism sickness rather than an intrinsic fault with jury nullification.

It seems pretty obvious that jury nullification is a net positive or a net negative solely based on how well the laws, behavior, and morality all currently correlate. Antebellum, helping runaway slaves escape was illegal, and a lot of people did it. Jury nullification; net positive. After the war, there was horrible racism-inspired violence by a lot of people. Jury nullification; net negative.

So, if you believe that there is currently a large body of often-enforced law that is totally out of synch with morality, then you probably are strongly in favor of jury nullification.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by robertliguori

It seems pretty obvious that jury nullification is a net positive or a net negative solely based on how well the laws, behavior, and morality all currently correlate. Antebellum, helping runaway slaves escape was illegal, and a lot of people did it. Jury nullification; net positive. After the war, there was horrible racism-inspired violence by a lot of people. Jury nullification; net negative.

I think racist inspired nullification can be solved by making sure the juries are not lopsided. Twelve white guys who are members of the KKK sitting in judgment of a black guy (or their accused white-guy buddy) is not going to get a good result.

Either force a more even jury pool or force a change of venue and that problem can largely be solved.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Acid Lamp

You are presupposing guilt, and basically making the statement that a trial is a mere formality.

Nonsense. Please point to those statements made by posters in this thread that, in your estimation, "presuppose guilt".

[Acid Lamp]

This one.

Originally Posted by magellan01

I don't think that's right at all. They are there to review the facts of the case. Their is a charge that Defendant A broke Law X. Evidence is offered by the prosecution and the defense. The only question the jury is there to answer is "Did Defendant A, in fact,commit an act that is in violation of Law X?. That's it. Period. The penalty a guilty person might suffer or the intelligence of the law itself is not what they are their to judge.

The jury returns a verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty. Until they return a verdict of Guilty, the accused is to be considered innocent in the matter of the case. Guilt and innocence have a more complex meaning then "did the defendant physically engage in the behaviour proscribed by law?" In most cases, that is enough, but in many more complex ones they are also weighing the intent, circumstances, and where allowed previous record or character witness presented by the defense. A person who steals food to eat has physically broken the law, That doesn't mean that the jury must find them guilty of theft.

Conducting trials in the manner you are advocating reduces the defense's position to nothing more than either an alibi or a technicality. Considering that the vast majority of cases concerning JN are relevant to controversial laws and issues such a system eliminates all ability to create new case law. It is eliminating the both the jury's ethical decision making, and preventing the defense from presenting a case for justification. THAT is how it presupposes guilt rather than innocence. It makes it a binary position, with no room for interpretation. That is wrong, and the early framers of our legal system placed power in the hands of the jury to prevent exactly that type of abuse.

[Czarcasm]

If you are predisposed to letting off people for stealing to feed their families, then you should get off your ass and lobby to change the law to reflect that view. Most(not all) of the juries today are made up of those not smart enough to out of that duty, further filtered by lawyers trying to game the system in their favor. These are not the type of people I want going into a courtroom thinking the law is nothing more than a suggested path to follow.

[Shmendrik]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

I think racist inspired nullification can be solved by making sure the juries are not lopsided. Twelve white guys who are members of the KKK sitting in judgment of a black guy (or their accused white-guy buddy) is not going to get a good result.

Either force a more even jury pool or force a change of venue and that problem can largely be solved.

But one white juror who is a member of the KKK can get his accused white-guy buddy a mistrial.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Acid Lamp

Conducting trials in the manner you are advocating reduces the defense's position to nothing more than either an alibi or a technicality. Considering that the vast majority of cases concerning JN are relevant to controversial laws and issues such a system eliminates all ability to create new case law. It is eliminating the both the jury's ethical decision making, and preventing the defense from presenting a case for justification. THAT is how it presupposes guilt rather than innocence. It makes it a binary position, with no room for interpretation. That is wrong, and the early framers of our legal system placed power in the hands of the jury to prevent exactly that type of abuse.

What a well-worded slippery slope: first we only let juries rule of the facts of a case, then everyone who is accused goes to jail. What is strange about this slippery slope is that the vast majority of states and the Federal government already run their courtrooms in this heinous fashion. The horror!

I can make up similar slippery slopes for your position: let juries have free rein over facts, laws, and argument, then you'll have them convicting people who didn't technically break a law at all, just because the defendant looks like one of "those" dangerous types; or they will let mass murderers off because they are sympathetic. Drawing this back to the question in the OP, I would suppose a jury given total latitude over law and facts will easily convict the accused, because he's a whacko and people don't like whackos on the streets, regardless of what the law says.

Making bad arguments is fun.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

John Peter Zenger? Fugitive slave cases?

Yesterday I had typed a post that included those examples, but they are not as interesting to me as modern day cases. I also wrote about jury nullification during prohibition and, more importantly, the labor cases in the 1890s that culminated in Sparf v. United States and the situation we have today. Specifically, the right of juries to judge law is the de facto law of the land because of the 5th and 6th amendments, but they do not need to be informed that it is their right. Not only that, it has since became a practice to use voir dire to determine a juror's knowledge of this right and to excuse them from service if they expressed it or even to declare a mistrial when it is communicated to the jurors.

Unfortunately, my 5 year old daughter shut down the computer in an attempt to get to a Disney website when I had stepped away from it for a minute and I lost all that. I don't really feel like working to recreate it...

Anyway, to modern cases. There was a recent case that I approve of, but obviously magellan01 is going to think that the guy should have been sent to jail as a criminal and the key thrown away. I speak of a former marine with the somewhat unfortunate name of Melroy Cort. Melroy was a veteran who lost his legs in the Iraq war and was arrested for carrying a firearm in Washington DC in 2006 on his way to Walter Reed. Cpl. Cort had a permit for the weapon in his home state of Ohio, but as he was expecting to stay some time in Walter Reed he took the pistol with him to Walter Reed as his commanding officer advised him he should take the gun to the armory on the Walter Reed base when he arrived and have it stored there. Of course the gun laws in DC during that time (this was before the appeals court threw out their handgun ban) were pretty unforgiving and he was charged with 3 counts of carrying a pistol without a license, possesion of an unregisterd firearm and possesion of ammunition. Now of course magellan01 probably believes that he deserved what he had coming to him as he was factually guilty (he freely admitted it) and he deserved to lose his military benefits and spend several years in jail, but fortunately for him the jury thought otherwise. They found him not guilty of the felonies after he told his story while representing himself (the judge in the case ordered him to not tell his story but to stick to the facts of the case). I personally think that justice was served with the not guilty verdict, though others might not agree.

I am going to hit submit now, just in case my daughter comes by, but I am not finished yet...

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by magellan01

I don't think that's right at all. They are there to review the facts of the case. Their is a charge that Defendant A broke Law X. Evidence is offered by the prosecution and the defense. The only question the jury is there to answer is "Did Defendant A, in fact,commit an act that is in violation of Law X?. That's it. Period. The penalty a guilty person might suffer or the intelligence of the law itself is not what they are their to judge.

Welcome us to your simple cartoon universe. The fact is the "preponderance of evidence' should determine your vote. That would indicate doubt, contradicting evidence and sometimes a close decision. Is the color gray in your world?
Lots of people who are innocent have been executed. Now many have been taken off death row and released. That is reality. Lots of doubts and mistakes in the justice system.

[Baal Houtham]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Most (not all) of the juries today are made up of those not smart enough to out of that duty, further filtered by lawyers trying to game the system in their favor.

Hi Czarcasm. Yes, you said "Most (not all)." But still I'd like to say that I served on a jury last month and the room was full of bright people. Two retired engineers, a CPA, four small business owners.

And interestingly, it was the people who tried to get out of duty that seemed (to me) smug and self-centered.

So, based on that smallest of possible samples, I'm inclined to doubt your judgement about the quality of juries.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, you would say that. You're one of them.

The long and controversial history of the Founders' support for jury nullification has to be considered in light of several factors. Mostly to do with the fact that the Founders were into all sorts of other nonsense that we rightly eschew today. Violent overthrow of governments and slavery, for example.

The one huge problem with jury nullification is that it doesn't (and cannot) set precedent. It inherently denies people the equal protection of the laws, because every other poor sap who gets hauled up before a judge on the same charge gets fucked, though he may be no more guilty than the one who was exonerated via jury nullification.

Now, if that first guy had been convicted, and appealed, he might have been able to set a precedent that the law was unconstitutional, or violated another higher law, or was incorrectly applied - but he didn't. The jury took the law into their own hands, instead of the facts. It is, in a sense, vigilantism.

You could look at A Time To Kill, and think that maybe jury nullification is a good thing, but as Oakminster points out, you'd better think about Emmett Till also.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Welcome us to your simple cartoon universe. The fact is the "preponderance of evidence' should determine your vote. That would indicate doubt, contradicting evidence and sometimes a close decision. Is the color gray in your world?

"Preponderance of the Evidence" is the standard on some types of civil lawsuits. Criminal cases require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Baal Houtham

Hi Czarcasm. Yes, you said "Most (not all)." But still I'd like to say that I served on a jury last month and the room was full of bright people. Two retired engineers, a CPA, four small business owners.

And interestingly, it was the people who tried to get out of duty that seemed (to me) smug and self-centered.

So, based on that smallest of possible samples, I'm inclined to doubt your judgment about the quality of juries.

I've served on juries because I feel it's my duty, but overall the people in that waiting room with me were not society's best and/or brightest by a long shot.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

"Preponderance of the Evidence" is the standard on some types of civil lawsuits. Criminal cases require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Pick up your eyes. Beyond reasonable doubt is subjective too. We have lots of murder cases that have been decided wrongly using exactly that concept.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Pick up your eyes. Beyond reasonable doubt is subjective too. We have lots of murder cases that have been decided wrongly using exactly that concept.

Way to miss the point. Which was--YOU accused another poster of living in a cartoon universe, and then stated the wrong standard of proof for a criminal case.

Maybe next time you go off about fantasy worlds, you should do a bit of research first?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Acid Lamp

This one.

None. Just as I thought.

Thanks for playing.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Welcome us to your simple cartoon universe. The fact is the "preponderance of evidence' should determine your vote. That would indicate doubt, contradicting evidence and sometimes a close decision. Is the color gray in your world?
Lots of people who are innocent have been executed. Now many have been taken off death row and released. That is reality. Lots of doubts and mistakes in the justice system.

Oh, I was thinking that no doubt would be present and no contradicting evidence wold be given. And your last paragraph has even less to do with what I wrote or the OP. And that's quite an accomplishment. You're prize?

You should start a collection. You could corner the market.

[Acid Lamp]

Originally Posted by magellan01

None. Just as I thought.

Thanks for playing.

This is GD. If you'd like to present a logical argument for your side then do so. I presented my rationale for protecting jury nullification, and it seems that it is supported in both law and historical precedent. Roll eyes at someone else. Just because a court tries to limit the power of the jury at every step doesn't make it correct, ethical, or possibly even legal to do so. A case could be made that it is only with the implied agreement of the jury to play by special rules that such a system can be considered fair. It is also a system which preys upon peoples general lack of knowledge about their rights, and the law regardless of position as lawyer, juror or defendant. Nor is a judge a king in his or her own little fifedom to enforce whatever interpretation of the procedural rules they choose. Even they are bound by certain limitations. I'm surprised that you don't see such a proceeding as severely limiting the defense's case at every turn. Frankly I'm uncomfortable with a system that allows a judge to instruct a jury to disregard evidence, testimony, and history and merely focus on nothing but a binary situation. Life is not black and white, and neither should be justice. Even though I've been making them in this thread, I really dislike slippery slope arguments. Thinking about it though, this is a case where I think such a train of thought holds rather true. If you have something better to present, or refute my logic, then show me where I am wrong instead of being condescending and snide.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Shmendrik

But one white juror who is a member of the KKK can get his accused white-guy buddy a mistrial.

So?

You can outlaw jury nullification tomorrow and that could still happen.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Acid Lamp

This is GD. If you'd like to present a logical argument for your side then do so. I presented my rationale for protecting jury nullification, and it seems that it is supported in both law and historical precedent. Roll eyes at someone else. Just because a court tries to limit the power of the jury at every step doesn't make it correct, ethical, or possibly even legal to do so. A case could be made that it is only with the implied agreement of the jury to play by special rules that such a system can be considered fair. It is also a system which preys upon peoples general lack of knowledge about their rights, and the law regardless of position as lawyer, juror or defendant. Nor is a judge a king in his or her own little fifedom to enforce whatever interpretation of the procedural rules they choose. Even they are bound by certain limitations. I'm surprised that you don't see such a proceeding as severely limiting the defense's case at every turn. Frankly I'm uncomfortable with a system that allows a judge to instruct a jury to disregard evidence, testimony, and history and merely focus on nothing but a binary situation. Life is not black and white, and neither should be justice. Even though I've been making them in this thread, I really dislike slippery slope arguments. Thinking about it though, this is a case where I think such a train of thought holds rather true. If you have something better to present, or refute my logic, then show me where I am wrong instead of being condescending and snide.

Already done. But you'll digest nothing, just repeating the same stuff over and over. Now, you make the correct observation that this is GD. And most people think it good form in GD to back up your assertions. You made a claim. I said I thought it was nonsense and for you to substantiate it with evidence. Here is the exchange to refresh your memory:

Originally Posted by magellan01

Nonsense. Please point to those statements made by posters in this thread that, in your estimation, "presuppose guilt".

This didn't require that you Google anything or scout the web for some obscure reference. It simply required you to share those posts in this very thread that backed up your claim. I called bullshit on it. All you have to do is cut and paste those posts that, you know, show your statement to not be bullshit. For some strange reason you didn't do that. I wonder why. Well, not really. It's kinda hard to back up bullshit with facts.

Do you see where you're wrong now?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Acid Lamp

Frankly I'm uncomfortable with a system that allows a judge to instruct a jury to disregard evidence, testimony, and history and merely focus on nothing but a binary situation.

But that's exactly what jury nullification does - encourages jurors to disregard the evidence and make up their own laws instead.

[Sailboat]

This isn't protected by the First Amendment? Freedom of speech, right to assemble in public (he's outside the courthouse, right?)

Wouldn't the solution be to have an officer of the court meet potential jurors once they're inside the courthouse and present information arguing against this guy's pamphlets? The solution to objectionable speech is supposed to be speaking against it yourself, isn't it?

[Acid Lamp]

Not really, Magellan01. L.G.Butts, Phd provided a bunch of cites in this thread that support legal and historical precedent for both jury nullification, AND the rationale behindit that I am supporting. Is there a particular reason I should clutter up the thread with the same citations, or requote him for your benefit? Read the thread. It's already here.

If you are arguing that my opinion that doing away with JN is tantamount to presupposing guilt needs some sort of legal citation, I'm not certain I could provide one. It makes logical sense to me and we are out in philosophical, not legal territory now. There isn't any bullshit at all, or otherwise it's all bullshit, your opposition included.

So let's restate it: I feel that JN is important because a jury DOES more than simply tote up facts against a measure and decide probability. It determines guilt; which is why prosecution has to show things like motive, or gain from the crime. The defense likewise should have, (and does) the right to demonstrate justifications for actions that technically break the law. The jury then weighs everything and decides. To instruct them to do otherwise is weighting the case heavily towards the prosecution since it severely limits the defense's strategy. There are plenty of cases where the defendant might be technically guilty, but acted out of good intentions, desperation, or in fear of their own safety, etc.. There are cases where they jury might well decide the law is being improperly applied, or is draconian. THAT is why I'm saying is equates with presupposing guilt. If you don't have a solid alibi, or indeed DID commit the act but are not allowed to present justification then you are making all law a binary matter when you well know that life is not so simple. They are exercising their rights to decide guilt; something that is complex. This is not the case with technical commission which it seems that you'd like to reduce all law to.

[Acid Lamp]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

But that's exactly what jury nullification does - encourages jurors to disregard the evidence and make up their own laws instead.

True enough, but the huge difference is that it is the Jury, not the judge that is doing it. It we entrust a group of citizens to determine guilt, then we have to entrust them to make the true decision of their ethics. Certainly in the cast majority of cases that is going to be the "correct" one anyway.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Tilley

Judges and prosecutors don't like this de facto power, but they've had to deal with it ever since John Peter Zenger.

This example indicates that the power to nullify was part of what the Founders understood to be the definition of a "jury". A panel of twelve persons unable to exercise this power would not be a "jury", any more than twelve dogs or twelve animatronic robots would be.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Sailboat

Wouldn't the solution be to have an officer of the court meet potential jurors once they're inside the courthouse and present information arguing against this guy's pamphlets? The solution to objectionable speech is supposed to be speaking against it yourself, isn't it?

I would think that the judge's instructions to the jury would pretty much cover this issue, even if jury nullification isn't specifically addressed. Every time I've been on a jury, the judge has clearly laid out the responsibility to be the finder of fact and that we had sworn an oath to perform that duty, and that we cannot be sidetracked by issues like trying to re-write laws.

I remain undecided on this issue, however. If the guy is just advocating for his view, that seems to be political speech in my mind, and not a crime. If, however, there is any evidence that his activities directly caused jurors to rule differently in some trial, then I would have to reconsider. I would have to think that's a pretty high bar to clear, however -- how can we really know that this guy was really the cause for a juror changing his mind?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Acid Lamp

Not really, Magellan01. L.G.Butts, Phd provided a bunch of cites in this thread that support legal and historical precedent for both jury nullification, AND the rationale behindit that I am supporting. Is there a particular reason I should clutter up the thread with the same citations, or requote him for your benefit? Read the thread. It's already here.

If you are arguing that my opinion that doing away with JN is tantamount to presupposing guilt needs some sort of legal citation, I'm not certain I could provide one. It makes logical sense to me and we are out in philosophical, not legal territory now. There isn't any bullshit at all, or otherwise it's all bullshit, your opposition included.

So let's restate it: I feel that JN is important because a jury DOES more than simply tote up facts against a measure and decide probability. It determines guilt; which is why prosecution has to show things like motive, or gain from the crime. The defense likewise should have, (and does) the right to demonstrate justifications for actions that technically break the law. The jury then weighs everything and decides. To instruct them to do otherwise is weighting the case heavily towards the prosecution since it severely limits the defense's strategy. There are plenty of cases where the defendant might be technically guilty, but acted out of good intentions, desperation, or in fear of their own safety, etc.. There are cases where they jury might well decide the law is being improperly applied, or is draconian. THAT is why I'm saying is equates with presupposing guilt. If you don't have a solid alibi, or indeed DID commit the act but are not allowed to present justification then you are making all law a binary matter when you well know that life is not so simple. They are exercising their rights to decide guilt; something that is complex. This is not the case with technical commission which it seems that you'd like to reduce all law to.

Are you fucking kidding me? Look at the exchange I REposted. I took a specific claim you made and called it for the BULLSHIT it was. It was then incumbent upon you to simply search the thread for quotes from other that substantiated your bullshit claim and share them or retract it and admit it was BULLSHIT. Instead, more of your Michael Flatley impersonation. And amid all this you talk about debate etiquette?

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'm inclined to think what he did wasn't illegal, if for no other reason than because the courts require prosecution to meet an awfully high bar when dealing with political speech cases.

The Supreme Court applies the "clear and present danger" standard in cases where freedom of speech and government interests conflict. I highly doubt the court would find that this guy's conduct constitutes a clear and present danger to the administration of justice- especially considering the fact that jury nullification itself is not illegal, per se.

The only time I can think of SCOTUS finding something that clearly did violate the clear and present danger standard was when it upheld a law prohibiting anti-war leafleting designed to obstruct Army recruiting (US v. Shenck).

Originally Posted by Acid Lamp

True enough, but the huge difference is that it is the Jury, not the judge that is doing it. It we entrust a group of citizens to determine guilt, then we have to entrust them to make the true decision of their ethics. Certainly in the cast majority of cases that is going to be the "correct" one anyway.

We don't entrust a group of citizens to determine guilt. We ask them to determine whether a set of facts matches what a judge tells them a criminal act is.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by jtgain

If not to nullify, then what is the purpose of a jury? Surely the judge or a team of legal experts could determine the outcome of a case far better than 12 laypeople. I always thought that the jury was the last firewall against a tyrannical government: That they can't throw people in jail until regular citizens of the community agree to do so.

Originally Posted by Acid Lamp

Then why have a jury at all? Certainly a simple panel of clerks with a checklist could easily and thoroughly review cases far faster than a jury and a trial. The point of a jury is that the accused must be convicted by a group of his or her fellow citizens. A pool that should represent a reasonable cross section of the community, their beliefs, values, and standards of the time. THEY weight the evidence, the cases argued by the lawyers, and the potential consequences and vote according to their conscience.

The jury's role is to determine facts. That is not something that "a team of legal experts" would be more qualified to determine, because, like the jury, they would be doing nothing more than weighing the evidence, and, indeed, with a particular bias. The jury is supposed to be disinterested, unlike the prosecution.

This is a completely separate from the question of jury nullification, which is when, despite the weight of the evidence, a jury decides to acquit for reasons other than whether the defendant committed the acts he is accused of committing.

Originally Posted by Markxxx

I think a jury should have the right to nullify a decision. The whole idea of a trial should be justice and getting at the truth. Not one side having a better lawyer than the other, which happens too often.

This is non sequitur. A jury's job is to weigh the evidence and determine whether the defendant committed the acts that the prosecution accuses him of committing, beyond a reasonable doubt. That has nothing to do with who has a "better lawyer."

[Tilley]

>>This example indicates that the power to nullify was part of what the Founders understood to be the definition of a "jury". A panel of twelve persons unable to exercise this power would not be a "jury", any more than twelve dogs or twelve animatronic robots would be.<<

Certainly the inclusion of the jury trial was an important point in the debates surrounding the birth of our Constitution. And a highly contentious one, as Pauline Maier points out in numerous places in her wonderful new book, _Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788_.

The insistence on this institution, and this "right," was a universal feature amongst all the ratification debates, in each of the states. But examining these debates reveal that the concept of the jury, the role it played, and its function, was not as universally accepted. Even then, it seems, debates such as this one, here, played out across the putative country.

It seemed generally accepted that trial by jury, as they understood it from its origins in ancient Scandanavia, was an important check on a government vulnerable to degeneration into mere aristocracy. But did this conception go so far as to accept a power to disregard the duly enacted laws of the legislatures? Some, it seems, felt so. But not all, I don't think.

From the beginning, during the very negotiations of what came to be our basic "social contract," it seems that the negotiating parties quibbled over whether juries were to be exclusive "finders of facts," or something greater with an implicit legislative "veto." And contextomy will prove not very useful - quotations of the leading voices can be found supporting, even insisting, on both views.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by robertliguori

It seems pretty obvious that jury nullification is a net positive or a net negative solely based on how well the laws, behavior, and morality all currently correlate. Antebellum, helping runaway slaves escape was illegal, and a lot of people did it. Jury nullification; net positive. After the war, there was horrible racism-inspired violence by a lot of people. Jury nullification; net negative.

So, if you believe that there is currently a large body of often-enforced law that is totally out of synch with morality, then you probably are strongly in favor of jury nullification.

yes, they're called drug laws.

[Evil Captor]

To respond to the OP: If the jury is just a bunch of robots doing what the judge instructs them to, they're just serving as cover for a system where the state pretty much runs things the way they want it ... their only role is to serve as the "peers" who rubber-stamp the outcome they are led to. This is really what the jurists and DAs who hold this view are angling for.

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

yes, they're called drug laws.

They're a large body of often-enforced law that (arguably) is out of touch with morality, but do they often result in a jury trial? I don't think so. That's why I don't think jury nullification is that important.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by suranyi

They're a large body of often-enforced law that (arguably) is out of touch with morality, but do they often result in a jury trial? I don't think so. That's why I don't think jury nullification is that important.

I dunno. I would think someone facing a Three-Strikes based mandatory minimum sentence for drug possession would make a point of going to trial. They can't plea down past the minimum sentence anyway so taking a shot at an acquittal is worth a go.

[Acid Lamp]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

We don't entrust a group of citizens to determine guilt. We ask them to determine whether a set of facts matches what a judge tells them a criminal act is.

Same difference. Ultimately the power to convict rests with the jury, who have the right and responsibility to make the best decision they can. That means considering all the evidence, not just the bits that the prosecutor and the state would like. Anything less is flippantly fiddling about with a person's life for the convenience of the state. If that means thumbing their collective nose at the definition of the law then so be it. I don't think the man in the OP has done anything wrong at all other than annoy the state by making jurors aware of their rights. Something it could be argued is against the interest of the state which doesn't like direct democracy much. What he's doing isn't dangerous, seditious, or treasonous; it's downright patriotic.


Magellan01, I have no idea what's crawled up your ass and died, but I've done the best I can to answer your accusations if you've got an issue to nitpick or something, take it to the pit, and we can spit and froth at each other all you like.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

I dunno. I would think someone facing a Three-Strikes based mandatory minimum sentence for drug possession would make a point of going to trial. They can't plea down past the minimum sentence anyway so taking a shot at an acquittal is worth a go.

Don't know a whole lot of junkies, do you ? Consequence-based decision making isn't usually part of their skillset .

[ralph124c]

This touches on a question I have always had:
how is a jury "tainted" by being exposed to the news articles about a case?
Both the prosecution and the defense present the facts in such a way as to slant the details to support their case. How are juror's ability to judge a case diminished by having more information?
The judge controls what is presented (in the way of evidence) during the trial-are jurors supposed to be empty vessels?
Having served twice on juries, I saw what I would characterize as three main types of jurors:
-concerned citizens who listen closely and strive to understand and judge all the evidence presented
-unconcerned citizens who lack interest in the case-their main concern is reaching a decision fast-so they can get home and watch the football games
-well-meaning people who are unaccustomed to thinking for themselves-these people usually defer to those who possess an air of authority.
I just don't see the system of choosing jurors as getting a lot of the first type of juror.
What harm can a pamphlet describing nullification be?

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

There are times when laws are not just. There are times when laws are not applied justly. There are cases where the penalty far outweighs the crime. There are cases where justice, being blind, does not take into account extenuating circumstances. In these times, jury nullification is a tool to pressure the government and the legislatures to change the laws. The fugitive slave act, prohibition (when, according to some experts, juries nullified up to 60% of cases because the laws were so unpopular), the labor laws around the turn of the century (resulting in the bitterly divided supreme court case Sparf v. US where the court was pressured by the business lobby to take away the right of jury nullification as they were loses cases like crazy - this is when it was ruled that juries don't have to be informed of their rights, but they STILL have the right to jury nullification), to drug laws (where states have had solid majorities legalize marijuana in limited cases but the federal government ignores these popular referendums and still criminalizes it), to abortion protests (where RICO, a law written to fight organized crime, has been used to punish abortion protesters), to overzealous prosecuting of sex offenders (Romeo and Juliet Cases), pornography (prosecution of parents because they took pictures of their kids in the bathtub), gun laws (the case I linked up thread), three strikes laws (where criminals get sentenced to life in prison for a petty crime like stealing a pack of cigarettes), etc...

Jury nullification has a proper place in our judicial system. I agree that it should not be used often, and I am OK with the fact that it is not told to juries at the beginning of a trial (like Ron Paul would like), but it is legal and it has an important place in our judicial system.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Acid Lamp

Magellan01, I have no idea what's crawled up your ass and died, but I've done the best I can to answer your accusations if you've got an issue to nitpick or something, take it to the pit, and we can spit and froth at each other all you like.

WHAT, precisely, is so hard about what I asked? YOU made a claim. I thought it false and called you on it by asking you to substantiate it. You do everything except what is required of you to substantiate your claim. Here is the exchange for the THIRD time

Originally Posted by magellan01

Nonsense. Please point to those statements made by posters in this thread that, in your estimation, "presuppose guilt".

So, either:

A) substantiate it by copying or pasting the appropriate passages

or

B)admit that neither I nor anyone else in this thread wrote anything that "presupposes guilt" and retract your statement that said otherwise

There, does that help? I can't imagine why you find this so perplexing. A or B. You made a claim here in GD, you've been called on it. Substantiate or retract. Simple. Though you'll have to stop dancing long enough to answer.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

To respond to the OP: If the jury is just a bunch of robots doing what the judge instructs them to, they're just serving as cover for a system where the state pretty much runs things the way they want it ... their only role is to serve as the "peers" who rubber-stamp the outcome they are led to. This is really what the jurists and DAs who hold this view are angling for.

Originally Posted by Acid Lamp

Same difference. Ultimately the power to convict rests with the jury, who have the right and responsibility to make the best decision they can. That means considering all the evidence, not just the bits that the prosecutor and the state would like. Anything less is flippantly fiddling about with a person's life for the convenience of the state. If that means thumbing their collective nose at the definition of the law then so be it. I don't think the man in the OP has done anything wrong at all other than annoy the state by making jurors aware of their rights. Something it could be argued is against the interest of the state which doesn't like direct democracy much. What he's doing isn't dangerous, seditious, or treasonous; it's downright patriotic.

Both of you seem to be under the impression that defense attorneys aren't allowed to present evidence. That's not the case.

In fact, the Constitution pretty much guarantees that the defense has a far greater opportunity to suppress evidence than the prosecution does.

There are any number of Constitutional provisions limiting the power of prosecutors. There are none limiting the power of defendants. The only limitations on defense are those imposed by the applicable rules of procedure, which are inherently easier to get around than things like the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, to name but a few.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

Jury nullification has a proper place in our judicial system.

It clearly does.

Yes, the judicial system seems to have fits at the thought of the unwashed masses overruling their well tutored opinions.

Clearly jury nullification is legal and the legal system, not for lack of desire, cannot see their way clear to stop it.

Instead the legal system puts every possible roadblock in the way of juries to nullify (oaths to the judge, not being fully informed of relevant information and so on).

Thing is I am not sure nullification has ever been overly abused. Sure, we can cite cases where there was a miscarriage of justice due to nullification but we can likewise cite cases where most would agree justice was served via nullification.

At the end of the day can lawyers/judges point to the judicial system run amok because of nullification? I don't think so. I believe juries, by-and-large, do their duty and nullification is rather rare. Given that the fear of lawyers/judges that the untutored masses will override them willy-nilly is unfounded.

I really think this is another instance that illustrates that the judicial system in the US is singularly unconcerned with actual justice. Their concern is process.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Both of you seem to be under the impression that defense attorneys aren't allowed to present evidence. That's not the case.

In fact, the Constitution pretty much guarantees that the defense has a far greater opportunity to suppress evidence than the prosecution does.

There are any number of Constitutional provisions limiting the power of prosecutors. There are none limiting the power of defendants. The only limitations on defense are those imposed by the applicable rules of procedure, which are inherently easier to get around than things like the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, to name but a few.

And the prosecution has near unlimited funds to prosecute you (granted they cannot go nuts in every case but they do not need to...if they feel millions are necessary though to prosecute then millions they will get). If you personally have millions of your own to spend then you are in good shape (ala O.J. Simpson). Otherwise you are pretty much fucked. Your public defense attorney has nothing near what the government can bring to bear against you.

The vast majority of cases are plea bargains. Read up on that. It is a massive miscarriage of justice (which is not to say a plea bargain is always a bad thing...just an overused and abused thing IMO). Unfortunately we prosecute so many people it is literally impossible to give them all trials.

[Acid Lamp]

Originally Posted by magellan01

WHAT, precisely, is so hard about what I asked? YOU made a claim. I thought it false and called you on it by asking you to substantiate it. You do everything except what is required of you to substantiate your claim. Here is the exchange for the THIRD time


.

Christ almighty. I already DID that. I quoted one your own posts, and explained how I inferred my position from it. Then you just got dismissive and rude. If you disagree that's fine, I could really care less. What do you want? the exact language of "presupposing guilt"? You won't find it, nobody said it. I inferred it as a logical extension of suppressing a jury's broader responsibilities. I've already said that a few times as well. I don't have to prove or retract shit, I've explained it several times already. My confusion stems from the fact that you can't seem to be able to understand a simple concept like: Position A can lead to consequences B. I thought at first you couldn't be that dense and were either asking me to google for some legal precedent, or you were just being an ass. Now it seems that you equate a difference of opinion with some sort of factual error. I'm not dancing pal, I'm rock solid on my position. So unless you are just trying to make some sort of niggly little "gotcha" type point, let it be.

[Acsenray]

I really can't believe some of the overwrought handwringing going on in this thread. The picture painted of the legal system here is so cartoonish and melodramatic, I really don't know where to start.

Legislatures make laws. The executive accuses people of violating those laws. Judges decide what laws mean. Juries weigh evidence and determine who is telling the truth and what events occurred. That is the structure of our legal system. This is how the balance if power is structured and the public has a direct or indirect voice in each of these divided roles. No one entity is given the power to overrule the rest based on some petulant whim. That would be anti-democratic. And the anti-tyranny role given to the jury is not the role of august the legislature or executive or judge has enacted or enforced a law they disagree with. That's the role of the voters during an election. The role of the jury is simply to determine the truth of the allegations set before them. Doing anything beyond that is interference with the democratic system.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

The vast majority of cases are plea bargains. Read up on that. It is a massive miscarriage of justice (which is not to say a plea bargain is always a bad thing...just an overused and abused thing IMO). Unfortunately we prosecute so many people it is literally impossible to give them all trials.

This is a complete non-sequitur. People who accept plea bargains are waiving their right to a trial (or at least their right to a trial on their guilt). You make it sound as though people accept plea bargains because they can't have a trial. They don't. They accept plea bargains because they expect to be found guilty at trial (or in rare circumstances, because they don't want to go through a trial, or whatever the case may be).

And the prosecution has near unlimited funds to prosecute you (granted they cannot go nuts in every case but they do not need to...if they feel millions are necessary though to prosecute then millions they will get). If you personally have millions of your own to spend then you are in good shape (ala O.J. Simpson). Otherwise you are pretty much fucked. Your public defense attorney has nothing near what the government can bring to bear against you.

Your public defender is probably (slightly) better paid than any of the state attorneys who will prepare the prosecution's case. Granted, the prosecution invariably has more funds available than the public defender, but for several reasons, prosecuting any given criminal case is much harder than defending it. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense need only show that reasonable doubt exists (and might not even have to do that, if the prosecution fails to meet its burden).

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Your public defense attorney has nothing near what the government can bring to bear against you.

Public defenders are on average some of the best criminal attorneys in the business. The people who are fucked are generally defendants in capital cases in stays that have appointed counsel instead of public defenders. There is concern for justice inthiae cases, but the number of such cases is relatively small compared to the totality of the criminal justice system.

The vast majority of cases are plea bargains. Read up on that. It is a massive miscarriage of justice (which is not to say a plea bargain is always a bad thing...just an overused and abused thing IMO). Unfortunately we prosecute so many people it is literally impossible to give them all trials.

On what basis donyou think that plea bargains constitute some kind of injustice? The vast majority of people who are charged with crimes and plead guilty -- I am told by my public defender friends -- are in fact guilty of the crimes they have been charged with.

O.J. Simpson really is an example of nothing significant about our justice system.