While I am at it, I would also nullify for any traffic violation that didn’t endanger someone, and most every parking offense. In my mind, prosecutors have an enormous burden of proof, and while they make it in most cases, that doesn’t mean everything needs to be prosecuted.
You are a liar.
Georgia’s constitution merely says, in pertinent part:
The phrase “judge of the law and the facts” does not mean that the jury is free to disregard the law. If a judge is the “judge of the law and the facts” do you think it means he has the right to convict even though no law was violated, or to aquit even though guilt was established?
Er… no.
Stop posting lies, liar.
- Rick
Uh oh.
Hmmm, I’m beginning to think “liar” is the wrong word for Our Pal Spartky. May even be one letter too short. Oh well, I’ll just be moseying along now. People to see, bridges to cross, and all that.
Bricker, your own quote says what I said it did: “and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts.” All the judges and lawyers and other wishful name callers can’t change what it says. The jury is the “judge” of what the “law” is in the state of Georgia. And a difference of opinion on what a sentence means does not make me a liar unless there is no possible way to construe it as I did. The plain meaning is the way I construed it. Your behavior in calling me a liar would be unethical conduct if you were a lawyer. I am ashamed for you. (I assume you have no shame, but really, you should carry your own weight in that regard.)
Nullification as a de facto right remains legal in every state of the union campers, just say you accept the defense argument and stick with it. It is embodied in four state constitutions, and thousands of years of jury existence. Nobody can punish a juror in any way for their verdict, and it is a crime to do so. You may vote to acquit regardless of what any judge or lawyer tells you, in any volume of voice.
An interesting question would be if there are any cases out there where a jury has acquitted, saying they accepted the defense argument, and the appellate court overturned the verdict of acquittal saying that it amounted to illegal nullification. I don’t know of any, and from what I know, the court does not have the power to convict notwithstanding the jury verdict in a criminal case. I am aware of juries acquitting or convicting and being harangued by judge who disagreed.
Incidentally, I casually followed the OJ Simpson case, which was in California, a state that supposedly does not allow nullification. All the evidence pointed to him, and it was really obvious to me that not only did Simpson do it, but that the police planted evidence against him and lied (to which Furhman later pleaded guilty of perjury). It seems to me that the jury in that case nullified based on the Furhman perjury, the missing 2cc of blood and the lies about breaking into OJ’s place because they thought he was in danger. I think that this was a classic nullification case and well worthy of debate. The jury clearly decided to let him off because of the police misconduct, an issue that truly was separable from his guilt or innocence.
Actually, one benefit of a properly framed nullification instruction would be to minimize the problem of jury lawlessness.
The fact is that juries do have the power to deliver rulings that do not comport with the law, and cannot be denied this power short of effective abolition of trial by jury. The best that can be done is to instruct jurors on a list of legitimate grounds for nullification (e.g. the law in question is un-Constitutional, the arrest and investigation was conducted in an unlawful manner), in the hope of channeling this power into beneficial pathways.
Actually, one benefit of a properly framed nullification instruction would be to minimize the problem of jury lawlessness.
The fact is that juries do have the power to deliver rulings that do not comport with the law, and cannot be denied this power short of effective abolition of trial by jury. The best that can be done is to instruct jurors on a list of legitimate grounds for nullification (e.g. the law in question is un-Constitutional, the arrest and investigation was conducted in an unlawful manner), in the hope of channeling this power into beneficial pathways.
We have now established that 1)The Georgia State Constitution does not support the Hanna-Barbera cartoon version of “jury nullification”, and 2)The Georgia State Constitution does support the concept of jury nullification (i.e. acquittal if the law in question is judged and found wanting) contemplated by the founders of the republic.
Again, a properly framed nullification instruction would provide the benefit of discouraging the former and encouraging the latter.
It’s clear that this thread will not resolve itself into a mutual understanding and acceptance of one position over another.
I regret my descent into name-calling, above; it lent nothing of value to the thread, except possibly a well-needed venting for yours truly. Still, we have a Forum for that purpose; it was an error to let the steam go here.
I stand behind the factual portions of my posts, above, and commend the facts therein to the attention of the interested reader.
If anyone has any other questions about jury practice, I’ll be happy to answer them.
- Rick
It pains me to see that one person can attempt so vehemently to undo the intelligent work of Bricker and minty green.
I am Spartacus, In order to clarify, you may not be a liar, but you are definitely a deceiver. It wasn’t a mistake, it was a deception you tried to make a point and said Georgia has jury nullification. It wasn’t merely a “difference of opinion on the meaning of a sentence.” It was deception, pure and simple. Here’s your caselaw, complete with pertinent quotes:
Nel v. State, 557 SE.2d 44 (2001)
While “the jury does possess a de facto power of nullification, i.e., a power to acquit the defendant regardless of the strength of the evidence against him, it nonetheless is true that if the evidence proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt it is the jury’s duty to convict.”
and
Duggan v. State, 483 SE2d 373 (1997)
Appellants also complain that this charge deprives them of their right to an acquittal purely on the basis of sympathy. This contention has no merit. While the jury does possess a de facto power of nullification and may acquit the defendant regardless of the strength of the evidence against him, it is nevertheless the jury’s duty to convict if the evidence proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt The trial court may never direct a verdict of guilty, but it may refuse to charge on the principle of jury nullification and may limit jury argument on that point. (citations removed)
I would’ve checked the other States you cited, but your credibility has been shot down over and over, and now over again.
While I’m at it, I’d like to cover some other “differences of opinion” you have spewed onto an otherwise healthy debate.
-
Jury Nullification is a right. No, it is a power. Big difference. You can vote to acquit for nullification reasons, but to do so you would have had to commit perjury, go back on your oath, and ignore the evidence. Come to think of it, that seems right up your alley though.
-
Your quote: “An interesting question would be if there are any cases out there where a jury has acquitted, saying they accepted the defense argument, and the appellate court overturned the verdict of acquittal saying that it amounted to illegal nullification.” That certainly would be interesting because, IT CAN’T HAPPEN. The State has no power to appeal from an acquittal. None. They can try and recharge the defendant with the same crime after an acquittal, but courts wouldn’t allow that to fly without a showing of jury tampering.
-
Your quote: “In my mind, prosecutors have an enormous burden of proof, and while they make it in most cases, that doesn’t mean everything needs to be prosecuted.” Nullification has nothing to do with the burden of proof. Nullification is when it doesn’t matter how much proof you have, or what the evidence is, you’re voting your own way.
-
Your quote: “But I personally operate under the assumption that all the lawyers and the judges are bums, and that the cops are probably lying.” Glad to see you admit your bias. This is based on my extensive life experience. I’d be tempted to ask about them, but I honestly don’t much care. Jury nullification is a basic human right as far as I am concerned. As has been said, oh about 20 times already in this thread, it’s a power not a right. * It protects against stupid and oppressive government action.* No, it doesn’t. It lets one guy get away with a crime that you don’t agree with. Grassroots lobbying, the appellate court system, the burden of proof, presumption of innocence, all those things are protections. They shouldn’t be confused with jury nullification.
Apparently, you were lying when you said Bricker has more patience than you, Hamlet. 
I was gonna hit the Texas constitution and cases tomorrow morning to disprove the “exlusive judge of the law and the facts” argument from this jurisdiction, but you’ve done it exceedingly well with the state he cited. Nice work.
I tried to post this at about 5:00 this evening, but my hampsters were taking a nap. Reviewing it looks like its still valid.
Here we go again with the Indiana State Constitution, which does indeed say that the jury is to find both the law and the facts—a provision not unrelated that many of the first settlers of the Hoosier State were fleeing creditors in Ohio and Kentucky. While the Indiana Constitution on its face gives the jury the power to find the law, the practice in that state has been that only source from which the jury can find the law is the judge’s instructions—the Indiana jury does not, as **Sparticus ** implies, just get to make it up as they go. In actuality the Indiana trial judge instructs the jury on the law just as in the other American jurisdictions. Any questions on this may be answered by looking at West’s Indiana Code Annotated.
While I do not know it, I suspect that Georgia, Oregon and the mystery state may observe the same rule. Our friends who are familiar with the state of the law in those two States may with to contribute something on this point.
In the last analysis the whole jury nullification movement is based on the idea that legislative enactments are legitimate only if you agree with them. Thus an advocate of jury nullification says “no legislative determination of right and wrong behavior is binding on me.” This myth of the right of active individual dissent is fundamentally anti-democratic. It acknowledges that the advocates of some special interest cannot achieve their ends through the legislative process and are willing to throw a monkey wrench into the central process of civil order and reject an institution that has evolved over the thousand years or so since the Folkmoots of Viking Iceland, Henry III’s traveling justices and the 300 year history of jury trials in this country. If the Jury Nullifier’s objective is to have some sort of populist seizure of power then he undermines basic ideas of equal protection of the law and due process of the law and representative government. If the Jury Nullifier’s objective is to obtain relief from a particular statute or procedure then he admits the bankruptcy of his cause.
Again, the point of all this is not whether a perverse juror may take it on himself to ignore the law, as the law is stated in the judge’s instructions. The point is whether the jury should be told that as a matter of law each member of the jury is entitled to make up his own version of the law without regard to the acts of the legislature, the decisions of the courts and the instructions of the trial judge. I say that the giving of that instruction is the beginning of anarchy.
As far as personal attacks on Minty Green are concerned, I see no reason he should retract any thing he has said in this thread. I don’t say this because he and I are the product of the same great public university (albeit a generation apart) but because he has been factually correct and politically accurate in his comments. While I don’t know anything about Bricker I can say much the same thing about him, although noting his smaller tolerance for fools.
As far a OJ Simpson’s trial is concerned, you can not fairly argue that because the case had an outcome you did not like it is an example of informal jury nullification. That jury, and every jury, as has been pointed out before, has the exclusive authority to determine the credibility of witness and to accept or reject evidence and to decide for themselves whether they are persuaded to the requisite degree certainty of a defendant’s guilt. For the jury to find a failure of proof, no matter how much you may disagree with it is not jury nullification. Jury nullification is when the jury says we are convinced he did it but we don’t think what he did was all that bad so we find the defendant not guilty. The jury has every right to be stupid. It has no right to substitute its will and judgment for the will and judgment of the legislature.
Hey! I suffer fools with less tolerance than Rick! You, suh, have impugned mah integritah.
(BTW, how’s the reconstruction project on the dome going? One of these days, you and I will absolutely have to get together for a Hawkeye Dopefest.)
The problem with legislative efforts to change unjust laws is that they cost a lot of time and money. Even a valid cause might be better approached through a combination of jury nullification* and legislative efforts than through legislative efforts alone, when the short-term effects of the unjust law are severe enough.
For example, if drug laws result in X thousand people being sent to prison each year, and Y thousand killers and rapists are released early to fit the drug users in, a successful five-year campaign to change the law will still end up with 5X thousand people in jail who’ve never harmed anyone, and 5Y thousand violent criminals on the streets. Jury nullification can start reducing those numbers immediately.
- or rather, juries acquitting based on their feelings about the law instead of the facts of the case
Don’t you see? This is always just where this argument ends. What thousands of killers and rapists released to my room in prison for pot smokers? In order for the jury nullification type to claim to be doing a public service he has to make up facts.
Jury nullification in the concrete has nothing to do with public service. It has every thing to do with self gratification. A jury nullifier thinks that some act, be it growing pot, throwing rocks at abortion clinics or driving 85 mph, ought not be prohibited to him. Being unable to convince a voting majority of his legislature or the voting public that his view is in the public interest, he takes it upon himself to sabotage the system that has served us for lo these many years. Isn’t the arrogance of this approach obvious?
The thing I have not figured out is why the clowns who hand out “informed jury” broadsheets on the first floor of the county court house on trial days are no prosecuted for jury tampering, but then I have not researched it either.
As far as letting the jury make constitutional-based evidentiary ruling under proper instructions–the practical problems are enormous. Just how long to you want a jury trial to be?
“The jury shall be the judge of the law and the facts” does not mean that “the jury is the judge of what the law is”. The law is what the legislature has decreed. The jury is the judge of (a) whether the allegation made against the defendant have been established as a fact, and (b) whether that fact amounts to a breach of the law established by the legislature.
I’ll put this very simply.
-
The jury acquits because they do not believe the prosecution evidence (the jury as judge of fact). This is not jury nullification.
-
The jury votes to acquit because, although they believe the prosecution evidence, they do not believe that those facts infringe the law in force (the jury as judge of law). This is not jury nullification either.
-
The jury votes to acquit because, although they believe the prosecution evidence and they believe that the facts as established constitute an infringement of the law in force, they are not prepared to enforce the law. This is jury nullification. It is not an example of the jury acting as “judge of the law” but rather of the jury acting as legislator, or even as revolutionary.
The difference is that the judge of the law determines how the law applies to a given set of facts. He does not determine what the law ought to be – that is the legislator’s role, not the judge’s.
The Georgia constitution does not therefore endorse jury nullification.
UDS, your explanation is clear and lucid, but I fear that even explaining this with Fisher-Price toys and words of one syllable would be ineffectice in swaying the adherents of the contrary view.
- Rick
Knee-jerk reaction to the news relayed by the OP, I’ll do a more thorough reading of the thread and give responses to specific things if I feel so moved in a bit.
You mean there are people seriously considering giving what amounts to Judicial Review to a bunch of people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty? The only distinction I can see between this and true Judicial Review is that the law remains on the books when the jury lets the guy walk after determining “the law under which they were charged is misguided or draconian.”
Bad move. Decent intent, involving common sense and the common man more in the interpretation of laws, but horrid execution. With so many laws that rely on statements like “a reasonable person” or “community standards of acceptable behavior” and such, it’s not a bad idea to get the “reasonable people” or “community” involved, but not like this.
Enjoy,
Steven
It doesn’t take me more than five seconds to figure out (for example) that someone prosecuted for possession of nekkid pichers or a revolver has committed no crime, because the “laws” allegedly violated are in contravention of the First and Second Amendments, respectively, of the United States Constitution (and therefore are not actually laws at all). I don’t think that this ability is some unique mutant power.
Steve MB did I parse what you said properly? Do you really believe there are no situations where the constitutional legality of a law is difficult enough to discern that such discernment would require a significant outlay of time? Even for a legal layman?
I make no excuses for the current complexity of the American Legal system. I also believe it to be too complex. What I don’t believe is that it could adequately be replaced by laws made up on the spot by twelve people picked at semi-random from the population. Giving juries the right to determine the constitutionality of a law with regards to acquittal/conviction of defendants would simply throw rule of law out the window. Law becomes whatever those twelve people think in that one case. Trials become even more sideshow-like than they are today because the attorneys know they don’t have to prove their client’s innocence, they can always play the card of “He’s guilty, but the law sucks.” Given the current state of popular feelings about the legal system,(as eloquently characterized in your own post) I would expect MORE miscarriages of justice if this was explicitly allowed.
Enjoy,
Steven