And what if he gets a jury member who decides to use the same jury nullification schemes to ruin his life by convincing the rest of the jury to go harsh on him?
Well, since the charges will be dismissed before it ever gets to a jury, that cant happen, nor is that how Jury Nullification works. Juries cant decide to find a person guilty of crimes they weren’t indicted for, and juries rarely decide on the sentencing.
Why won’t he get that $15K back? I’m not clear on the distinction between bail and bond, and why he only needed to pay 10% of the $150K bond. Fight my ignorance?
He posted a bond of 10% of his bail. If he had been able to come up with the whole $150,000.00 yes, he could get that back. But he only posted a bond, which is non-refundable. That’s exactly as the judge figured, effectively fining the dude $15,000. He can not get that back.
Bail bondsmen will post the entire bail to the court on your behalf in exchange for 10% of the actual bail provided to them up front. If a defendant makes all court appearances, the court will refund the bail money, so the bondsman gets their money back, but keeps your 10% as a fee.
Theoretically, I suppose a jury pool could decide 'Well, we don’t think this guy did THIS crime, but he sure is an asshole, send him to jail". The difference is that the judge could, I think, overrule a guilty verdict, but not an acquittal.
I dont think so. The Jury returns a verdict only on the charges brought before them.
Right. But they could, in private, be 'he totally didn’t murder that dude, but he’s such an asshole, let’s all agree he did"
They have a page where you can look at some of their brochures in pdf form.
One of them coaches the reader on how to make sure to pass voir dire, because you cannot employ nullification tactics if they dismiss you from the panel. Some of the content is genuinely dishonest (e.g., cancel your memberships in organizations and subscriptions to publications so you can truthfully answer no to probing questions – because, you can always re-up later).
Another title is Jury Protection for the Second Amendment
Yeah, this is clearly a glibertarian/activist organization, of questionable intent.
I don’t find this dishonest in the least. It is advising tactics to remain honest when answering questions that may otherwise disqualify a person.
I would love to serve on a jury. Mostly because I have never done so and have an interest in the law. I’d hope I can pass voir dire if questioned.
The** Stalin Constitution ** ---- * The Freest in the World ! * — guaranteed a lot of good things.
It was frowned on to insist on them, though.
If the judge and prosecutor are elected officials, I hope that the voters kick them to the curb in the next election. I would also hope that the Michigan Bar Association recommend that judge and the prosecutor be charged with professional misconduct. You shouldn’t get to effectively fine someone $15,000 just because you disagree with their politics.
I read a book recently that dissected the phrase, “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” I can’t vouch for the historical accuracy of the analysis of the book, but it was quite insightful.
The argument went somewhat along these lines. You swear to tell the truth – we all know what that means, it means you aren’t lying.
But you are also swearing to tell the whole truth, which means that you will not leave out parts of the truth that would lead to incorrect conclusions – in other words, you are swearing not to lie by omission.
Finally, you’re swearing to present nothing but the truth – not to attempt to confuse, throw in red herrings, or matters that would make the job of getting at the facts harder.
If I was in voir dire and I was asked whether I was a member of the ABC Guild, but I had just quit the Guild hours ago, I believe that answering, “No, I am not a member of the ABC Guild” would constitute a lie of omission that would violate my oath.
Of course, the reason I’m suspicious of the book’s recounting of the meaning of the oath is that I’m certain no lawyer would advise me to actually present a truthful answer to that question.
Are members of the jury sworn in like that? It’s been too long since I served on a jury but I don’t remember it that way. Of course, it could vary from state to state.
I’d sure as shit be chasing the court system for compensation. If that’s not what lawyers are for - and legal fees! - I don’t know what is.
If during the voir dire process the people asking questions wanted to ask about any current or past memberships, they could phrase their question that way. “Are you currently or have you ever been a member of the ABC Guild?”. To answer that question honestly, you would have to say yes.
There is no dishonesty, IMO, in answering a direct question directly, as asked. And given the oath is administered to witnesses when testifying, and yes/no answers are permitted I don’t think the way you phrase it should be considered a violation of the oath.
Lawyers will tell you to answer that exact question, to not volunteer anything. If they dont know enough to ask “are you now or have you ever been…” then it’s their fault.
In any case the oath is CA “Do you, and each of you, understand and agree that you will well and truly try the cause now pending before this court, and a true verdict render according only to the evidence presented to you and to the instructions of the court?” Not ‘the truth the whole truth…’ which is not given to jurors, afaik.
I have no doubt that such an oath is for the jury upon being picked. I’m sure that they are sworn to tell the truth in voir dire, which is before they become the jury.
You don’t believe a person would come to an incorrect conclusion based on an unforthright answer?
I’m not disputing that you would almost certainly avoid any legal trouble by simply answering the question asked. But let’s not pretend that you are telling the whole truth.
If the conclusion was whether or not membership for the Guild existed, then yes they would come to an incorrect conclusion. But that’s not what is being evaluated - what’s being evaluated is the person’s ability to serve on a jury. I don’t think the answers to those questions are sufficient to determine a correct or incorrect conclusion on that score.
The whole truth is a gray area I think. It’s not confessing to sins of youth, but it may be volunteering temporal membership to guilds. I think this type of variation is embedded in the process and it is known that jurors at times will not tell the whole truth as you understand it. I’d be comfortable with the answer that denies membership in your example.