Yeah, no kidding. Jury nullification folks can rarely be bothered to actually read the cases they say support their side. In fact, they do not.
Look, John, nobody is disputing that juries can do whatever the heck they want. The question is whether they can or should be instructed that they can ignore the law in reaching their verdict. In fact, modern jurisprudence unanimously and unambiguously holds that they should not be so instructed. I can’t find the Brailsford case online (typical–all those FIJA sites ever do is quote the pretty language and ignore the rest), but I strongly suspect even that 200 year old case is far less helpful than you think it is.
In short, don’t go claiming victory because the jury has the power to do whatever it wants. What the FIJA loonies want is an explicit instruction that they can do whatever they want, and that, of course, is not the law anywhere in America.
If you can’t find it, that only tells me you didn’t read it. You don’t read a particular case, but are full of “faith and fury” accusing others of not reading the cases and are being dishonest and taking things out of context if they form the opinion that jurors ought to know all of their rights. I came up with over 500 documents to cull over. Just how much effort did you put into it? Do a google search engine of “Brailsford John Jay supreme court“. Or you can go here to http://www.constitution.org/ussc/usscdeci.htm Or this same cite should take you directly to the case, with the pertinent parts in blue type: http://www.constitution.org/ussc/003-001.htm This is the first case that judged that jurors have a right to judge the law. All of the other handful of cases I gave support it as well. Of course, all of this doesn’t matter as long as one realizes it, so again, I have no ideal of your source of contentions are with me. You acknowledge it, but want to be kept secret. But if court cases have already decided this, why do some want to keep it secret by not letting the jurors know all of their rights before they proceed in a court case? One can only speculate for their hypocrisy. Also, dead silence from you too, on all of the anarchy and chaos that would supposedly follow if jurors had in fact, known all of their rights. Another unsupported assertion of a fear-monger who won’t or can’t demonstrate what they claim to believe in.
You’re amusing. While you acknowledge that jurors can do whatever the heck they want, how dare any judge tell them of their rights and be given instructions to know this before they proceed. FIJA wants it to be a law that jurors know ALL of their rights before they judge the case. You prefer not to tell them, and you accuse FIJA and others of being dishonest for wanting to do so. Your assertions read like a caricature.
John
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by John Zahn *
If you can’t find it, that only tells me you didn’t read it.
[quote]
Of course I didn’t read it–like I said I couldn’t find it at home this morning. But I did read it it later this morning when I was in the library, and I even Shepardized it enough to determine that the U.S. Supreme Court itself has actually stated that the report of Justice Jay’s alleged instruction is bogus. More on that in a moment.
Damn straight. Because your Dougherty case explicitly rejects the jury instruction you’re claiming entitlement to, and your Moylan case explicitly rejects the jury instruction you’re claiming entitlement to, and Sparf v. U.S. thoroughly rejects the jury instruction you’re claiming entitlement to. Sparf even says the report of Justice Jay’s oral instruction is simply incorrect:
In fact, Sparf repeats innumerable times that jurors are obligated to follow the law as given to them by the court, and may not break their oaths by disregarding that law. I’ll spare you the Supreme Court’s interminable analysis and recitation of the legal authorities for that decision, and instead simply refer you to pages 64 through 107 of the decision, which can be found here or at 156 U.S. 51 (1895).
So basically, I call serious bullshit on you and your falsification of legal authority. Come back when you can manage to accurately represent case law instead of regurgitating the lies and misrepresentations of lunatics.
And by the way, there’s no such thing as the “United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland.” :rolleyes:
Sorry, the first part of that post should read like this:
Of course I didn’t read it–like I said I couldn’t find it at home this morning. But I did read it it later this morning when I was in the library, and I even Shepardized it enough to determine that the U.S. Supreme Court itself has actually stated that the report of Justice Jay’s alleged instruction is bogus. More on that in a moment.
I’ll tell all of my colored friends to be sure to have a SCJ riding shotgun the next time they cruise through Whiteyville. Let me explain how things work in the real world:
OPD: Boy, you ran that stop sign.
Citizen: No officer, I came to a complete stop.
OPD: You live around here boy?
Citizen: No officer, just passin’ through.
OPD: Mind if I take a look in your car?
Citizen: Yes, I do. Why?
OPD: Step out of the car…
He was cited for running a stop sign.
It wasn’t his car.
My sin is that I believed him.
Remember the black Miami Dade Police Major stopped in Orlando a few years back? He didn’t feel like being searched for an illegal lane change either. I don’t trust die Polizei. Call it street smarts. Or maybe I’m just too much of a tree huggin’ lib’ral for your taste. Maybe we should just call it a shadow of a doubt. How does Liberty and Justice For All grab you?
Thanks, but I asked you to tell me how you knew the subjective motives for why that particular person was stopped. Otherwise, you’re just asserting–quite ridiculously–that every black driver who gets stopped in a “white” neighborhood is stopped for specious reasons.
What does that have to do with the subjective reason why he was stopped?
About what? That it wasn’t his crack pipe? Fine, then I’m glad you voted to acquit. More power to you. Intent or knowledge, after all, is quite definitely an element of the crime for which he was on trial. That’s not jury nullification, my friend. That’s applying the law to the facts of the case as you determined them to be, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality of the traffic stop.
Yeah, and he told the cops who asked for his consent to search to go fuck themselves, just like I recommended above. Of course, he thereupon proceeded to assault the cop who pulled him over, which is most definitely not recommended.
Me either. Did you tell that to the lawyers when they asked you at voir dire?
How does rule of law and not of men grab you? I mean, as long as we’ve resorted to platitudes?
After reading the OP I must disagree. (I skipped over a lot of posts)
My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that juries have the right to acquit people if the jury feels that the law is unjust. Here is a link http://www.sumeria.net/politics/ontrial.html
From what I have read recently it seems that judges have taken away the power of the jury to decide cases. I do not have a cite but I seem to remember at least two cases where the judge told the jury that they had to convict a person based on the laws in the books even if the jury thought the laws were unjust. I will see if I can hunt up a cite.
At the same time I really doubt juries will let killers go free and let a pot head off. The pothead isn’t a threat and most people know that.
I know Minty already responded to this, but I just wanted to be sure that you know that this is not jury nullification, as was pointed out to you the first time you told your story. In order for there to have been nullification, the defendant had to say “I ran the stop sign. It was my crackpipe. Do not convict me because the laws against running stop signs and possessing crackpipes are bad laws.”
In your case the guy said it wasn’t his pipe, and he didn’t run the stop sign, and you ‘believed’ him. Good for you. Personally I have some doubts about the honesty of your belief, but I wouldn’t say that under the circumstances your decision was completely unreasonable.
And using the same selective opinion reading techiniques favored by the nullification crowd, I would undoubtedly see myself quoted:
Sleestak, John Zahn, and any others to whom this criticism applies: read the whole damn opinion you’re quoting, rather than just accepting snippets from a website with an agenda. Please.
The Howard Bar Association refers to the “United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (includes Maryland)” and another court to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.”
Keep working on the straw-man, Green one. Every post has you taking more shots with this one. Please provide anywhere where I have said that these cases were asking for jury instruction? For that matter, who on this board has stated that these cases state this? And if they haven’t, why do you keep arguing a position that no one has took?
Now with the off-cite link you provided it pertains to some earlier questions, that shows what was going on in the courts after we adopted the constitution:
Until nearly 40 years after the adoption of the constitution of the United States, not a single decision of the highest court of any state, or of any judge of a court of the United States, has been found, denying the right of the jury upon the general issue in a criminal case to decide, according to their own judgment and consciences, the law involved in that issue, except the two or three cases, above mentioned, concerning the constitutionality of a statute. And it cannot have escaped attention that many of the utterances above quoted, maintaining the right of the jury, were by some of the most eminent and steadfast supporters of the constitution of the United States, and of the authority of the national judiciary.
So at least then, the courts didn’t have any problem with jurors using their own judgments and conscience. Nowadays, it looks like we have more judges and more lawyers, who want to chip away at what once was a juror’s well known right. Give it about ten years, and it’ll probably have something else it wants us to abide with too. With this SC ruling you provided in quotes it has Justice Mr. Justice Curtis showing concern for Justice Jay’s decision because his was a civil case, and not a criminal case. This court wants to make the case that all along Justice Curtis wasn’t singling out a difference between civil and criminal courts, and in the next paragraph, it addresses this issue:
Certain observations of Chief Justice Marshall in the course of the trial of Burr have sometimes been referred to in support of the contention that the jury in a criminal case are under no legal obligation to accept the law as laid down by the court. But nothing said by him at that trial was inconsistent with the views expressed by eminent jurists in cases [156 U.S. 51, 66] to be presently cited.
I hope the cases they presented there are more convincing that what was shown here if Justice Marshall meant both civil and criminal cases. I’ll look at those cases later.
You’ve said in an earlier post, that juries can do whatever the heck they want. If you agree with this court ruling, how can you believe that? But you know, and I know, and many know, that regardless of what one judge says over the other, we in fact, can do what the heck we want. Our history from the slave laws, from prohibition, to many other dumb laws the courts have tried to cram down our throat, has shown that the jurors have continually demonstrated, that they do have the right to judge the merits of the law, and to vote their conscience regardless of what some judges and lawyers say. Jurors just have to be as good a liar as some of these judges and lawyers when they say they will only go with the judges instructions and consider only the law. There’s not a damn thing they can do it about it.
**So basically, I call serious bullshit on you and your falsification of legal authority. Come back when you can manage to accurately represent case law instead of regurgitating the lies and misrepresentations of lunatics. **
Sounds like more BS to me. “It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”
Once again, getting back to your earlier post, you have stated that juries can do what the heck they want. Put this in perfect harmony with this SC ruling if you agree with it, and try not to sound like a lunatic doing it.
And you’re still a no-show on all of the predicted chaos and anarchy. Yawn…Sound like more BS to me.
John
If you’re smart (correct me if I’m wrong), you’ll find throughout this discussion, that I, nor anyone else that I’m aware of has tried to argue that these court cases were to be instructing juror’s.
Tell me Bricker, do you prefer to vote your own conscience and weigh whether or not a law is bad and should even be enforced, or do you just do anything the lawyers tell you? Did the jurors vote their conscience during Prohibition? What about during the Winston-Salem witch trials?
Nice backtracking there, but it is patently obvious that you have been citing those cases in support of your proposition that juries should be instructed they can ignore the law. Nevertheless, the cases themselves utterly reject that proposition, and stand only for the completely undisputed notion that juries can acquit for whatever secret reason they feel like. Continuing to cite and quote those cases without prominently acknowledging that they reject your position is a thoroughly dishonest tactic. If I pulled that crap in my practice, I would expect to get sanctioned by the court.
Duh. And we still don’t have any “problem.” The point of the FIJA nutballs, which you have explicitly endorsed, is to encourage jurors to exercise their “judgments and conscience” in a way that ignores the law itself. It’s that artificial encouragement, not the conscience of the jury, that should be rejected.
Chip away? Again, I cry bullshit. Jurors could vote their conscience in the 18th century, and they can do it in the 21st century. And as you once again try to obliterate the distinction between the power to nullify and an instruction on nullification, what you have failed to demonstrate is that there was ever an established right or duty to instruct the jury that it can decide what the law is.
That’s your strawman, not mine. It’s frankly such a ridiculous caricature of the argument against nullification instructions that I feel no need to address it at all.
Neither of which is “The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland.” Like I said, such a thing doesn’t exist. A small point, but a telling one nonetheless, in that it indicates you know jack squat about the legal system you’re condemning.
I prefer to decide each and every case on its own merits, because I am a far superior judge how how things should be than purt near anyone else on the planet.
I recognize, however, that others may not share this high opinion of me, and, absent my richly deserved coronation as Emperor of the Earth, I am in no position to legitimately impose my own views on the world. So I accept that, as a member of society, my role is not to impose my own views of what the law should be, but to work within the confines of whatever role I hold. If I am a voter, I can urge my elected officials to pass certain laws, and vote for candidates who I believe will not act inimically to my interests. If I am a legislator, I can propose and pass laws I believe are in my constituents’ interests. If I am a judge, I can act as a neutral interpreter of those laws; if I am a lawyer, I can be a zealous advocate for a particular interpretation of those laws, and the facts of a particular case arising under them.
As a juror, if I took an oath to decide the case on the facts as I found them, and the law as instructed by the judge, that is precisely what I’d do. If I were a juror during Prohibition, and the government proved to me that a certain business owner was selling gin and tonics, and the judge instructed us that if we found the owner was selling gin, we must vote guilty, I would vote to convict.
If the issue were such that I could not, in good conscience, do that, I would so inform the judge. I would not violate my oath as a juror, and claim to accept the rules in an effort to undermine the process.
Since you asked.
Now, let’s examine:
I have read and re-read this sentence, and its meaning continues to elude me. What I think you might be saying is that you have not argued that any of the court cases should be used to instruct jurors. If so, then I fail to see the relevance of your comment, since I was chiding you for misrepresenting the decisional effect of the cases you quoted, a sin not vitiated by either withholding them from, or sharing them with, jurors.
The best summary for nullification is simply this, I think: jurors unquestionably have the power to nullify. They do not have the right to do so, and it’s not right for them to do so.
I noticed that the guy pushing for South Dakota Measure A is doing so because he was convicted of violating anti-marijuana laws, and feels that jurors should be informed of their power to nullify such laws.
But Measure A will only have an effect on South Dakota state courts! All a South Dakota prosecutor has to do is charge you with violating a Federal anti-marijuana law, and boom, your case goes to Federal court, where South Dakota’s Measure A would have no effect!
Well, it would have to be a federal prosecutor who makes the decision to prosecute, but the principle you’re describing is otherwise completely correct. The obvious case that comes to mind is last year’s Supreme Court opinion in U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Cooperative, although that doesn’t deal with the procedural barriers to applying a state nullification instruction to a federal case.
Well I for one sure wouldn’t want to be charged with a crime (only a speeding ticket every 10 years of so so far) and be tried by a fucking judge who needs to get reelected. I want 12 people who would rather be doing something else and who have also been in court and listened to a cop lie about a speeding ticket or lane change ticket deciding what is right and wrong. A political appointee deciding what is right or wrong and throwing me in jail. Bullshit. I want a jury. Nullification is a basic right in almost any kind of case. The only difficulty is when the jury nullifying is doing something like approving a lynching.
No, no, no. You’re missing the pont. The jury can already listen to the cop’s evidence and decide they don’t believe it and acquit you, and they will be told this very clearly. They suggestion is that the jury should be told that they can acquit you even if they do believe the cop’s evidence and they are convinced you were guilty.
Two things: first, and most importantly, jury nullification does NOT nullify a law. It does nothing but let a person off on a crime that everyone else has to follow. It makes no statement, and it takes somebody who is willing to perjure themselves to do it. The law remains in effect.
Second, the chance of charging somebody federally for simple possession of marijuana is slim to none, and slim is on it’s way out the door. No United State’s Attorney’s office is going to bother to prosecute misdemeanor marijuana laws just because there is a slim chance of jury nullification.
And Sparticus. Nobody goes to jail for speeding. Are you actually arguing that traffic laws should be ignored because they are bad laws? It’s one thing to have a jury decide you weren’t speeding and find you not guilty, it’s a completely different thing to have them nullify because they think traffic laws are draconian. And, as Bricker pointed out, nullification is not a right, it’s a power. Big difference.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by minty green * Neither of which is “The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland.” Like I said, such a thing doesn’t exist. A small point, but a telling one nonetheless, in that it indicates you know jack squat about the legal system you’re condemning.
The “United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland” is only more specific of the case since “Fourth Circuit” has its jurisdiction in a handful of states. A search engine on Google with “Maryland” substituted for “Fourth Circuit” turned up 68 documents with the exact phraseology I used. So continue to pick nits, if that is all you got.
**Nice backtracking there, but it is patently obvious that you have been citing those cases in support of your proposition that juries should be instructed they can ignore the law. **
Starting as early as my second post, and I’ll put it in bold type what I have written:
I’m more than aware that while jurors have the right to nullify the laws, there is no law that says they should be aware of this right.
If you still think I have been citing these cases to show that the jurors have the right to be instructed with these, then you are truly in need of a “Hooked on Phonetics” program.
Duh. And we still don’t have any “problem.” The point of the FIJA nutballs, which you have explicitly endorsed, is to encourage jurors to exercise their “judgments and conscience” in a way that ignores the law itself.
Jurors already have ignored the prohibition laws, slavery laws, and civil rights laws of the sixties, and many will have the courage to continue to ignore stupid ass laws, in spite of judges instructing jurors to the contrary, so big freakin’ deal. We are a better nation for it.
Chip away? Again, I cry bullshit. Jurors could vote their conscience in the 18th century, and they can do it in the 21st century. And as you once again try to obliterate the distinction between the power to nullify and an instruction on nullification, what you have failed to demonstrate is that there was ever an established right or duty to instruct the jury that it can decide what the law is.
They can today, but many judges do not want jurors to know this, and even instruct jurors to the contrary. And if a lawyer today, in most cases was to remind jurors of their veto power, they would risk contempt of court. Haven’t looked into it, but I doubt this contempt charge was ever being issued for the same reasons just after the Constitution was adopted.
You said in your very first post this:
Instructing the jurors that they may ignore the law if they decide it is unjust would likely result in many miscarriages of justice when a particular defendant appeals to the prejudices of any one of those jurors. Do we really want to let, for instance, a gay-basher walk away from legitimate assault charges because one jerk on the jury thinks the victim deserved it?
Really Green One, this is what you’re afraid of? Not sure why you picked this hypothetical situation. But let’s suppose some gay friend of yours gets beat up. Do you really feel like jurors being fully informed of their power, that this is going to cause many to walk away from assault charges? Your statements suggests that if jurors were to be instructed of their rights to decide unjust laws, that this would lead to things like the hypothetical case you set up as happening. If chaos or anarchy is too strong a word for you; we’ll go with your many miscarriages of justice when a particular defendant appeals to the prejudices of any one of those jurors if only you’ll start bringing the evidence up for it other than wild speculation. But let me also remind you of a quote you used, and you must have agreed with it, or else you wouldn’t have used it.
To encourage individuals to make their own determinations as to which laws they will obey and which they will permit themselves as a matter of conscience to disobey is to invite chaos. No legal system could long survive if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable. Toleration of such conduct would not be democratic, as appellants claim, but inevitably anarchic.