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? :rolleyes:
Guy arrested for handing out pamphlets on jury nullifaction at courthouse. Guilty of jury tampering?
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).
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
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.”
>>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.
yes, they’re called drug laws.
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.
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.
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.
Don’t know a whole lot of junkies, do you ? Consequence-based decision making isn’t usually part of their skillset ;).
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?
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.
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
[QUOTE=magellan01]
[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
You are presupposing guilt, and basically making the statement that a trial is a mere formality.
[/QUOTE]
Nonsense. Please point to those statements made by posters in this thread that, in your estimation, “presuppose guilt”.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.