So, that old thread about jury nullification has burbled up again, having gone off the rails years ago, and (AFAICT) with nothing really new added today.
I have a loosely related question, better fit to be asked (if at all) in a new thread. Thus, this.
We generally understand that, somewhere during a case (typically near the end?) the judge instructs the jury about the applicable law in question.
My questions:
(1) Is the jury typically also given a printed copy of the entire text of the law, that they can study in their deliberations if they feel the need?
(2) If not, can the jury request to see the text of the law? Okay, of course they can ask. I mean, if they do, will the judge typically give them a copy?
(3) Otherwise, does it mean that the jury must judge according to the law solely as explained to them by the judge? If so, does this give the judge too much power to tell the jury just what he thinks they should know about the law?
If some or all of the jurors want to read the law for themselves to see what it says, but the judge refuses to give them that, would those jurors be acting within reason, based on that reason alone, to refuse to convict?
Well, I very recently served on a jury and we were NOT given the text of the law. The judge gave us the elements that had to be proven in the jury instructions (and maybe those elements were taken verbatim from the law), but not the entire statute. I don’t know what would have happened had we asked for it. We asked for clarification on a couple of other things and the only answer we got boiled down to “refer to the jury instructions” so I’m guessing the same thing would happen.
I was on a jury for attempted murder and we did not get anything in writing (other than the verdict form). We had three choices - guilty of attempted murder, guilty of assault (I think), or not guilty. We were told what the elements were and while I don’t remember the instructions exactly - at the time they were pretty clear and we had little problems dealing with them.
I have also sat in on trial and never have seen the jury told they will be provided with a copy of the law.
It was kind of weird - as it’s the only time I’ve had to do something important where there wasn’t stuff in writing. We had no idea of even the spelling of various witnesses names (I have sat in on other trials where names were spelled for court reporter).
The attorneys each argued their slant on the instructions - but there really wasn’t much doubt as to the elements of the crime. We could have asked for clarification, but we didn’t need it.
Although it carries a bit from state to state, the usual procedure is for the judge to instruct the jury about the law and give the jury a copy of the instructions, but not the text of the law itself. The judge doesn’t just make it up, however, there are pattern instructions that cover most issues and the two parties usually submit proposed instructions that comply with the law of the jurisdiction.
It wouldn’t make sense to give the jury the actual “law” in most cases. Sometimes the law is based on case law, and juries aren’t expected to analiize appellate decisions. Even statutes are often long and complicated.
I was going to say the same thing. It is often more important how the statutes have been interpreted than how they are written. If a jury decides to interpret the law in a way that has already been deemed unconstitutional then the whole thing can be thrown out later.
This is the reason why discussions on specific laws here can not be precise. Unless a poster happens to be a lawyer from a particular state it is often impossible to know how a law has been interpreted in that state. Just reading the text of the statute is not enough in many cases.
This, IME. Jury instructions are not made up by the judge on a case-by-case basis, according to his whim or in an effort to achieve the verdict the judge thinks is right. As Procrustus says, there are pattern instructions and counsel may propose modified instructions to the judge based on the particular issues at hand. When I have served on juries, we had a copy of the jury instructions, which the judge had read to us in open court prior to sending us off to deliberate, and the verdict form.
It is a common misconception that “the law” is easily accessible and that each topic is addressed in one or two sentences, like the Ten Commandments. When I worked in a large law library many years ago, I had a patron ask me for “the copyright law.” I asked him, copyright pertaining to what? “Just the copyright law.” Okay. So I brought him the volume of the US Code pertaining to copyright. Yes, it’s an entire book. He was flabbergasted.
Note: I’m not saying that this is a good system, so don’t attack me about how complicated the law has become or about how it’s so bad that an ordinary person can’t find their way through it without a lawyer (you really mean “shyster,” you don’t fool me). I’m just saying that is the way it is.
In this state the website to look up just the statute as written is so buggy and badly made that it is nearly impossible to look it up as a private citizen. I pull out the paper copy. Any time I have to cite a NJ law in legal discussions here it is usually from a lawyers website used to drum up business for that firm. The state’s site is just that bad. And that isn’t even going into case law and Attorney General Guidelines.
Here’s what Montana has. I can’t imagine how any state’s could be fundamentally different from that: A bunch of pages with the Code Annotated on them, organized the same way the law is in the books, with searching left up to the fact Google is allowed to index the whole shebang. That’s the stupidest, most obvious design, and it’s basically functional. It would take talent and effort to make something worse.