Are there any limits to voir dire questioning? Can they ask questions like “Do you think that it’s likely that a cop would perjure himself?” or “Do you find DNA analysis to be an effective method of identifying a person?” or “Do you think that shooting someone in the back invalidates a claim of self defense?”
If I were a juror, just how much am I allowed to question the law? If the prosecution says that they are charging someone under such and such law, am I allowed to demand to see the original law? The minutes from the session in which the law was passed and the role call? If the DA is completely unable to furnish a legislative origin of a law, does anyone disagree that I am justified in being a judge of law insofar as I can say “Well, I judge this law not to be valid if it’s not supported by a particular bill”?
Also, I’m curious as to what the Massacusetts definition of murder is.
But what’s wrong with that?
You forgot the word “absolute” before the word “representative”.
When the SCOTUS finds a law unconsitutional, do you have a problem with that?
I don’t think that’s either relevant or accurate. Juries did not refuse to convict because they had a problem with the law, but because they had a problem with who the law was applied against. I suppose technically this is jury nullification, but no more than refusing to convict someone because they’re your friend is jury nullification. An analogous situation would be if every time they had a death penalty with a white defendant, the SCOTUS were to delcare that the death penalty is unconsitutional, but every time they have one with a black defendant they uphold the death penalty, even though this makes no sense in terms of precedent. If that happened, it would show that we would need serious judicial reform, but it wouldn’t invalidate the idea of judicial review.
As I said: it is antithetical to a nation founded on the principle of representative democracy.**
As a general principle, no, because the constitution is the product of democratic decisionmaking. It wasn’t handed down from on high – it was written and put into place via democratic processess. As such, the judiciary must enforce its provisions.
However, I do have problems with what might be called creative interpretations of the Constitution for precisely this reason.
Calm down, Whack – Spavind wasn’t making an ad hominem attack, and even if he were, I didn’t notice that your name came up. He was actually stating a fact – the popular pro-nullification movements are typically motivated because they feel some particular law or set of laws is wrong or improperly enforced, most typically drug laws. This is in contrast to the rather rarefied debates over the proposition that exist in legal circles (and which is echoed on this thread), which concern themselves primarily with the question of whether nullification is just.
Attempting to preserve or improve the lives of the sick and injured is playing God: it’s intervening in the natural course of the world to prevent an outcome.
When doctors keep people’s bodies functioning (barely) when their deaths from illness or injury are inevitable, are they playing God or not?
No, they are not. That is simply using one’s skills to the best of one’s ability. There is a fundamental difference between preserving life and hastening death.
The jury is only to apply the law as given to the facts they determine in the case. They don’t, and shouldn’t, have the right to decide whether the law is proper or not. That is for the legislature, judiciary, and executive branches.
Having an entire jury nullify is, thankfully, quite rare. However, it is much more common that one particular juror will ignore the judge’s instructions, go back on his oath, and refuse to convict. In a majority of cases where I’ve seen this happen, it is because the juror made their determination on the basis of race or distrust of the system as opposed to disagreement with the law in general.
JNOV’s only occur in civil cases. If a jury nullifies and finds a guilty person, not guilty, their verdict cannot be disturbed by the judge.
The key word is IF. Since nullification isn’t part-and-parcel to the system of checks and balances, they don’t.
There are limits, but I don’t know if they are the same for every jursidiction. Here, the lawyers in a criminal prosecution can’t tell the facts of the case, and they can’t give a hypothetical set of facts and ask a potential juror whether he would vote guilty or not guilty for those facts. The shorthand for this is that you can’t ask the jury to commit to a particular verdict.
In response to questions like these, the judge would likely tell you that he will give you the law applicable to the case and any definitions you need to apply it.
I think that you are completely unjustified as long as the law in question appears in the book that contains the codes or statutes of the jurisdiction. At best, the prosecutor might have to defend that a law is valid to the judge, if the defendant challenges it. I can’t see any reason that a judge would entertain a potential juror by proving that a law is valid when the important opinion holder is the judge.
If the jury is finding somebody not-guilty because they think the State didn’t prove the case, that is perfectly acceptable. However, if they are voting based on a disagreement with the law itself, that’s a misuse of power.
Now, I am completely against using an example pulled from a completely fanciful, and, IMHO, poorly written, television show. However, taking the OP at face value, I would disagree with your conclusions that “he committed no crime” and follow the “spirit of the law”. It seems to me that the People of the State of MadeUpLand had determined, through their legislature, not to allow euthanasia as a valid defense, in any respect, for the killing of another human being, thus the man did indeed commit a crime. Symapthy is not a valid basis for determining guilt or innocence, and juries in my State are instructed not to use sympathy nor prejudice in determining guilt or innocence. All that being said, it appears the DA was a complete bastard, and the judge played along. But remember, it was TV.
Putting aside the somewhat paranoid view expressed, the jury nullification issue does not work solely against the State. I would dare say there are plenty of cases where a jury relied only on prejudice and sympathy for the victim, rather than the facts of the case, to find somebody guilty. To me, those are valid examples of jury nullification. Now, if you restrict your defintion of jury nullification to only those extremely rare cases where a jury votes to acquit on the basis of disagreement with the law, then you have a more specific issue. One that revolves around respect for the rule of law and representive democracy, fairness to all citizens, consistency of judgment, and efficacy of actions.
And I think the issue of euthanasia, regardless of your position on it, has been considered by all the legislatures, and has been rejected as a defense. It’s not like this issue is brand new and has never been considered before. It has been, and the majority of people have rejected it.
These arguments are good points if you are arguing against mandatory sentencing and the curtailing of judicial discretion. You may even use these to argue that juries should be allowed to determine sentencing too. However, using them to argue for jury nullification is, in effect, justifying the means with the ends.
It was the swipe at people who base their decisions on what they think they saw in a fictional TV show. The post was otherwise good and well taken by me but that piece came out of nowhere except, I felt, as a swipe at the OP using a fictional TV show as part of the premise laid out for this thread. Perhaps I was too sensitive to what was written but even now I am not entirely convinced I was too sensitive.
I think part of the problem is that legislating legalization of euthanasia is decidedly difficult. The potential for abuse is extreme if it becomes legally allowable to euthanize someone. One could foresee cases where family members might pressure, say, a parent into essentially killing themselves sooner rather than later in order to avoid medical bills and what might be perceived as a serious dwindling of their inheritance. That’s just one possibility…a coldhearted possibility I grant but not one I’d bet money on not happening somewhere in our society. I’m sure other potential abuses could be thought up as well.
Given that it remains illegal the legislature could essentially abdicate their responsibility to jurors were jury nullification a supported possibility by the legal system. In effect they would be saying this is always illegal but should a jury of your peers consider a particular situation to be unique then can let one pass.
If jury nullification is improper why is there need for a jury in the first place? If all the jurors are for is to act as automatons determining guilt as applied to the law with no regard for anything else then isn’t a judge a far better choice to make that determination correctly and without predjudice?
Please believe me, WACK-A-MOLE, when I say that my previous post was not intended as a personal attack on you, although it was intended as a general criticism of the jury nullification types.
People who have spent an adult working life trying to persuade jurors of one thing or another and in state level politics will uniformly tell you that the idea of jury nullification is so much snake oil that purports to cure a malady that just doesn’t exist in the courts in which they practice. The people who strongly advocate jury nullification are, by and large, people who don’t like some particular aspect of the law as enacted by their state legislature or by the national legislature and who have been unable to have it changed through the legislative process or (as we are seeing now) by stacking the courts with judges who are inclined to lean in their direction. The lukewarm advocates and the merely curious for the most part base their view not on a personal political-legal agenda but on hypotheticals and, not to put too fine a point on it, made up stories. That is just not a valid basis on which to base a profound change in the way law suits are decided.
With regard to the function of a jury that is not authorized to “find the law,” a jury, even one constrained by instructions, has the exclusive right to decide, not whether evidence has been presented on which it could find the necessary facts, but whether it is persuaded of the reliability of evidence that establishes the requisite facts. Every jury I know of is told in instructions that it is the exclusive judge of the facts and has the unrestricted privilege to believe or disbelieve the evidence presented. A jury’s decision to accept or reject evidence for any reason or no reason is not subject to review or, with some limited exceptions, subject to second guessing by any judge. In finding the facts, in passing on the credibility of witnesses, in establishing damages in civil cases, the jury performs vital and valuable functions which few people who work with the system want to see eliminated. It is not a function I would want to see assigned to some judge.
I suppose the legislature could enact a law specifically allowing juries to nullify, but I doubt they would. Every legal defense, self-defense, duress, etc. have some grey area and the ability to be abused (i/e Bernie Goetz and self-defense), so the legislature could easily add wording that allowed euthanasia to be practiced under certain conditions. The fact remains though, that they didn’t, and the jury shouldn’t be the ones deciding what is a good law.
This seems to be a favorite argument, but it’s one I just don’t get. It’s a preposterous notion that juries have nothing to do, but consider nullifying cases. The whole issue of nullification rarely, if ever, comes up. Are all those hundreds of thousands of juries that don’t even consider nullification just automatons? No. They are all performing their vital role as arbitrers of the truth. They decide who to believe, what actually occured, and whether somebody is guilty. That isn’t a small thing at all. Doing without nullification doesn’t make them any less vital to a system of justice, and insinuating they are automatons does a great disservice to those who take the time to do their civic duty and sit on juries.
That’s two direct insults within a few days, and I know you know better than to do this. I know you know the penalties as well. By all means, keep this up if you intend to get banned.
This is off the topic a bit but I think it ultimately bears on the issue. Why wouldn’t a judge be superior to a jury?
As I understand it a defendant (in a criminal trial at least) can opt for a trial by jury or judge. In practice I think they go for the jury far more often than the judge alone. It may be cynical of me but I suspect this has more to do with the ability of a jury to be bent to the desired verdict more easily than a judge. By ‘bent’ I mean their ability to be swayed in a fashion that the evidence alone may not justify (via getting them to sympathize or making them angry at the system or any number of possibilities).
A judge is a trained legal professional. A judge has seen numerous cases, is aware of deceptive ploys by the attorneys (on both sides) if/when they occur, understands difficult legal concepts and can likely follow difficult testimony better. If you assume a fair and impartial judge (which I realize is not always possible) I would think a judge far superior to deciding guilt and applying the law appropriately than any jury.
Training in the law does not give a person a special talent to judge credibility. The vast number of trial court judges are recycled prosecutors who frequently have close and friendly relationships with the prosecutors and police. In states where judges are popularly elected the judge has frequently been elected on a promise to throw damn near everybody in jail. In elected judge states a judge who is not a dependable convictor will not be reelected, and being a judge is a good job, what with reserved parking places, good pay and all the bowing and scraping. If you think a restricted jury is unjust, wait till you are stuck with a bloody-minded judge.
A friend of mine got into serious trouble for saying in open court that just once he would like to walk into a court room and find all the county attorneys in front of the bench, instead of finding one of them on it.
All this is meant to be understood as a statement that all too many trial court judges are biased toward the prosecution and against the defendant in criminal cases.
YMMV, but in my experience, quite the opposite is true. I guess it all depends on your point of view, but I do get sick and tired of people generalizing that judges are only out to protect their income and tend toward bias to the prosecution.
And yet you try to convince people that our system is such that jury nullification isnt necessary or is unwelcome because the system in place is adequet to the job.
I dont know man, given the fact that youre a lawyer, your opinions on the legal pros and cons of jury nullification is kinda like getting the opinion of a Microsoft employee on the pros and cons of software. With all due respect, maybe this is the root of your frustration with people who will not/do not seem to listen to what you say when it comes to the desireability or lack thereof of nullification.
My whole point though this is that we dont need a law to tell us what we should allready know, what should indeed be common sense; you can vote however you want for whatever reason you want when on a jury. Yes, this can lead to abuse but it can also lead to prevention of abuse.
But, things aren’t the same all over. In my county, most of the money for the criminal court judicial elections comes from the criminal defense bar, so even the former prosecutors end up with a defense oriented stance. The two exceptions are the judge whose dad was the DA for decades and the woman who was independently wealthy. She is now retired, he’s still throwing the book at defendants, and most of the rest of the judges are middle of the road.
I can only give you my opinion based on my experience. I work in a judicial district where, because of funding restrictions, the same judge works in the same two or three court houses for three months running. The four or five counties in which I try cases are served for the most part by three district court judges each working a three-month rotation and by one associate judge who handles lesser felonies. All four served as county attorneys before appointment to the bench. All have long service and have heard every story time and time again and have become cynical and to some extent burnt out. The associate is a decent and intelligent man but the county attorney is his former partner and the son of his former partner. I do not want any of these people deciding fact and credibility questions in any criminal case I handle if there is any sort of a factual argument for acquittal. If there is any chance of a fact-based defense, I want a jury. That is precisely why we have the option of a jury trial. This is not to say that juries are more easily fooled or persuaded. Jurors are, however, less inclined to reject factual defenses by saying “I’ve heard that before.” In hard criminal cases, jurors are more inclined to be open-minded than are crusty old judges.
Civil cases, money damage cases, are a different story. Often a plaintiff in a close case may have a better chance of a recovery in a bench trial but less of a chance of hitting a jackpot. Judges are often more tolerant of human weakness than are jurors who sometimes require perfection before they will dip into the defendant’s wallet.
Given all that, and to get back on topic, I trust a jury to decide the facts but I am not willing to let a jury decide what the rules are, based on Lord knows what personal foible in afflicting them, or any one of them, at the moment. It is more than enough work trying to persuade jurors of the facts within their limited attention span, let alone walk them through the labyrinth of the law.
