In my best estimate such a non-specific answer would be general enough to protect you – see the Colorado hemp juror whose case I use in the Staff Report.
In CA a (Civil) GJ can remove a Public Officer from office. They investigate waste, fraud & mismanagement by various government entities within their County, including such large scale stuff like the Board of Supervisors and down to Water Districts. They have pretty wide ranging investigative powers. In many cases, however, they turn out to be a Paper Tiger. Still, few politicos deliberately cross one. It’s better to smile, cooperate, say you’ll take their report under advisement and in the end do very little.
Can a potential jury member refuse to take the oath and avoid jury duty?
I guess I am suggesting if the oath is forced via some threat (e.g. contempt of court and a fine and/or jail time) it is not much of an oath.
Then again if people can simply skip out on jury duty by saying they do not want to take the oath that seems too simple.
I would have a real problem following this juror’s oath. Given that am I violative of the oath if I give it under duress and then break that oath?
Is it because of the mention of god? They’ll give you a version without it.
In an American court, the judge will typically give you the elements of the crime and tell you specifically what the relevant findings must be. If there is an intent element, it will be set forth.
So far as I understand, the grand jury isn’t exercising an independent power. It’s working at the direction of the prosecutor. “Investigation” might mean nothing more than viewing the evidence that the prosecutor lays before it.
Nope.
In particular:
“It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences.”
I think it is entirely relevant to the jury to note that the (otherwise good as shown in court) kid busted for smoking a joint is on a third strike and will be sent to jail for 20 years.
I may well agree he is 100% guilty of smoking that joint but I wholly disagree with the punishment and could not, in good conscience, find him guilty knowing he would face that punishment.
I have a problem too with that. Not for the same reason but for having to follow the judge’s explanation of the law if it conflicts with my reading of it.
But once you finish explaining it to me then,are no longer explaining it, I can do as I see fit.
Anyone can play grammar games.
Yeah, only that judge isn’t playing games. If you have an objection to the law, then your duty as a citizen is to fight against it politically. Your duty as a juror is to apply the law that is given to you.
That is by no means a universally held opinion. Indeed it seems to have not been the opinion of our FFs when setting up our legal system.
I posted this a couple years ago. Seems appropriate to post it again:
No. Your duty is to ensure the system of justice performs in a fair and unbiased manner. The purpose of the jury is to ensure that not only does the government think an offense is committed, but that society at large considers the crime to have been committed and deserving of conviction.
The classic case of jury nullification I like to cite is Dr. Henry Morgentaler who brought Canadian abortion law into the 20th Century and established the supremacy of jury decisions in Canada.
Here’s a twist I’ve wondered about.
Suppose the judge has explained the law to the jury. Now the jury is deliberating.
And now suppose the jury, or just one member, feels he doesn’t understand the law (as described by the judge), or doesn’t agree with the law (as he understands the judge’s description). Can the jury reasonably ask the judge to provide them with the actual text of the law? (Or would this happen routinely anyway?)
I’ve been under the impression that the jury isn’t normally given the actual text of the law to read. They just get an explanation from the judge. Can the jury, during deliberation, demand to read the actual text of the law in question? How would a judge respond to such a request?
If I were on a jury, and I wasn’t satisfied with the law as given by the judge, I think I would insist on reading the law myself. If the judge refused that, I think I would not have a qualm about refusing to convict under that law.
I do not know what the judge must provide to the jury but certainly juries can (and do) send messages to the judge asking for clarification or additional direction. How the judge responds I suspect is mostly up to the discretion judge within some parameters.
Worked the other way too when juries in the north refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
No. You simply have to explain why you can’t follow the oath. Where’s the duress?
I was really asking. I thought the duress could be if the judge slapped you with contempt of court for refusing to take the oath and do your civic duty.
If in fact you can simply say that you (general “you”) cannot in good conscience take that oath and the judge sends you on your way then no problem.
No, if you say you cannot take the oath for that reason, I’d say you’re safe. I cannot imagine your explaining to the judge the reasons you’ve laid out here and getting any pushback from the judge.
Of course, that doesn’t mean you can didge jury duty. You just may end up in civil court judging an insurance case.