But what if the judge and the law are wong and full of shit?
Would you send a slave back to the plantation he escaped from if it was in your power to say “No, this isn’t right. Fuck the court, I’m glad he is a free man now.” You would really let the court badger you out of your constitutional right to disobey and free a man from tyranny because you were told that is what you were supposed to do? One word…Neuremberg.
Oh…Wong
was that Chinese judge. Half brother of the guy presiding over OJ’s trial… Damn, I hate it when names evade me 
http://www.ci.lenexa.ks.us/codemaster/Title_4/4/P/1.html
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT: In evidence means fully satisfied, entirely convinced, satisfied to a moral certainty, and the phrase is the equivalent of the words clear, precise and indubitable. In criminal case, the accused’s guilt must be established “beyond a reasonable doubt”, which means that facts proven must, by virtue of their probative force, establish guilt.
CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF: That proof which results in reasonable certainty of the truth of the ultimate fact in controversy. Proof which requires more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Clear and convincing proof will be shown where the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE: As standard of proof in civil cases, is evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which, as a whole, shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not. With respect to burden of proof in civil actions, it means greater weight of evidence or evidence which is more credible and convincing to the mind. That which best accords with reason and probability. The word "preponderance" means something more than "weight", it denotes a superiority of weight or outweighing. The words are not synonymous but substantially different. There is generally a "weight" of evidence on each side in case of contested facts, but juries cannot properly act upon the weight of evidence in favor of the one having the onus unless it overbears, in some degree, the weight upon the other side.
The amount of evidence necessary for the plaintiff to win in a civil case. It is the degree of proof which is more probable than not.
"Preponderance of evidence" may not be determined by the number of witnesses but by the greater weight of all evidence, which does not necessarily mean the greater number of witnesses, but opportunity for knowledge, information possessed, and manner of testifying determines the weight of testimony.
REASONABLE DOUBT: The standard used to determine the guilt or innocence of a person criminally charged. To be guilty of a crime, one must be proved guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". "Reasonable doubt" which will justify acquittal is doubt based on reason and arising from evidence or lack of evidence, and it is doubt which reasonable men or women might entertain, and it is not fanciful doubt, is not imagined doubt and is not doubt that juror might conjure up to avoid performing unpleasant task or duty. "Reasonable doubt" is such a doubt as would cause prudent men to hesitate before acting in matters of importance to themselves. Doubt based on reason which arises from evidence or lack of evidence. (1994 Code)
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/08/0812.html
“Today, in trials involving controversial laws, during the jury selection process, the judge will strike “for cause” anyone who states that he or she disagrees with the law. They go even further by telling juries that they are only to judge the facts in a particular case. Judges now tell juries that even if they disagree with the law the defendant has broken, the juries must convict. Finally, the judges can hold anyone in contempt of court that tries to inform juries of their right to judge the law.”
So, according to the above passages, a juror should vote according to the law, not the legality of the law. Despite your confusion regarding the level of evidence necessary to satisfy a criminal conviction one would HAVE to find the defendant guilty AS CHARGED. Perhaps an appeal based on the constitutional integrity of the law in question could be grounds for a dismissal. But, that would not be the jury’s duty at trial.
As other have said already, you probably would not be selected as a juror in a case involving a law you would noy support. This is in fact one of the many question you would be asked in jury selection. If you lied/mislead/ or decided later you did not agree with the law in question, you might find yourself in legal trouble, if you let this interfere with your sworn duty as a juror.
BTW this is a recent development (past century) in US judicial practice.
If folks are as willing to let jury nullification go against their beliefs (letting racists and gay bashers go free or whatever) as for them, then I’d consider it. But somehow, I don’t think so, given most of the discussion I’ve read on this board, anyway. Everyone keeps hammering the drug laws and such, and always seem ignore the fact that it could go the other way.
And I’ve forgotten if there’s been any discussion on the effect it has on jury selection…
Well then. If this thread serves no other purpose.
Wanna get out of Jury Duty?
Buy this T-Shirt!
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge’s instruction…
if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty
they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong.
– Alexander Hamilton, 1804
Wouldn’t it be better to let the individual conviction against the slave stand, and let the outrage against such laws force a change that helps ALL slaves? Your act in defying the law helps that one slave, yes, but it also removes the case from any judicial review – there’s no appeal from an acquittal.
Which was brought up in the kazillion other nullification threads.
Legality does not equal morality. Technically speaking, the jurors should do right by the law rather than their own conscious. Of course, if a jury acquits a murderer just because they have a moral opposition to the death penalty, and the murderer really is dangerous enough to put to death, odds are he’ll commit the same crime again and it really doesn’t matter what the first jury thinks.
The law is (theoretically) set up on the premise that it is better to let 10 guilty people go free than to convict one innocent.
just when did i consent to being a member of any group?? where’s my signature?? where’s the eula i agreed to?? you can’t show me a legal contract. was it tattooed to the inside of my mother’s birth canal?? “by passing through here you contract to adhere to the rules of the larger group.”
why?? is there a rule about it?? who made the rule?? the lawyers, politicians, revolutionaries, courts, founders, corporations, leaders… i’m not a follower.
i can make rules too. how bout his rule: i will not give my consent to an injustice. you can beg or demand all you want. i won’t do it. you might be able to force me to pretend to do it by use of threats, torture, or abuse. but that would hardly qualify as me giving consent. you can’t tell me to use my judgement only as you want me to. my judgement is all mine. if you want to use your judgement, just do it. don’t ask me to pretend to use my judgement.
OJ had 2 Japanese named judges,for obvious reasons, IMO, Lance Ito in the criminal trial & I recall Hiroshige ? in the civil . The judge in the preliminary hearing was Kathleen-Kennedy-Powell.
Nope. They can’t do that. This was settled in 1670 - R. vs Penn & Mead.
If the purpose of a jury is to do exactly what the lawyers, the judge, and the precedents say to do, what exactly are they there for?
Would it not, therefore, be not only possible but in fact EASIER and CHEAPER and MORE ACCURATE to replace the jury with a computer?
You plug in the conditions… here’s what the laws are, here’s the evidence we have. Tell us what to do. There is no chance of error at all. The laws are there. The evidence is put in… the verdict comes out. Given proper programming, of course, which as we all know is completely impossible.
Why not? What would be wrong with it? You say ‘well it’s missing that human touch… computers are cold and impersonal’. Or you bring up the Garbage In-Garbage Out argument.
Uh, ok… but that’s what you want. EXACTLY what you tell the jurors to do, they do. Right? So they’re serving the purpose of a computer program. Or spreadsheet. Or whatever.
The reason we have a jury for these things is because a HUMAN BEING can see a mistake. A computer can’t. A human being can say “Yes he killed her. But she was pinned under a bus, and dying of cancer anyway, and in terrible pain, and his WIFE for god’s sakes, and she would have suffered in the wilderness and died anyway because no help could be found. It was a mercy killing.”
So what. The law says he killed her. Give him the chair.
Is that what we want? Really?
Please explain where the constitution gives us the right to disobey the law.
It isn’t a matter of breaking the law. It is a matter Of BEING the law. And as long as you asked. It is in Article 3 Section 2 and applies to all criminal trials apart from impeachment.
Jury nullification is part of American history. “Freedom of religion” owes its existance to jury members who refused to convict(see the trial of William Penn) . It is one of the reasons why we have jury trials. It is up to american citizens to judge not only the defendant, but the law itself. We eliminated prohibition by so many juries refusing to convict. A jury member is the last check and balance against tyranny. I will never vote “guilty” for a person charged for violating a law that I dont agree with, or which I feel is unconstitutional. I am honored, as an american, to be selected for jury duty, and never try to get out of it.
What can be clearer, and more unfettered, than what our original/first supreme court justices said themselves of the duties of a jury member?
“The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
- Chief Justice John Jay, U.S. Supreme Court Georgia v Brailsford (3 Dallas 1, 1794)
“The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”
- Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice 1804 signer of The Declaration of Independence.
If you want to know what a jury member is “supposed to do”, ask the guys that gave us the right to a jury trial.
There’s an old saying that there are four boxes by which the people maintain their freedom.
The soapbox
The ballot box
The jury box
And the cartridge box.
We’d rather not use the last one, but if you take away the others…
I don’t have access to Lexis-Nexis so can’t come up with a bunch of cites, but surely my mind hasn’t escaped me to the point where I haven’t heard of judges in recent years declaring that a jury verdict had no basis in fact and overturned it? Someone please assure me this has in fact happened since 1670.
No. The OP wasn’t “partially right.” He (and now you, with this assertion) are completely wrong.
The OP said:
That language can only be applied to a criminal trial. Parties to a civil suit are not found “guilty.” The judgement may be against them or for them, but they are not “guilty” or “innocent.”
In a criminal trial, that’s just not so. Ever.
I will assume that, given your confusion between the two, that this error arises out of that confusion, and not out of profound ignorance as to the effect of a criminal jury’s “not guilty” verdict.
- Rick
Let me amend my hasty declaration above – since it, too, is wrong.
I should have said, “In a criminal trial, a ‘not guilty’ verdict may never be overturned. Ever.”
It’s true that a judge may reject a jury’s ‘guilty’ verdict at a criminal trial. A judge may never reject a jury’s ‘not guilty’ verdict.
In the famous trial of the British nanny accused or murdering a baby, the jury found her guilty of murder but the judge replaced the verdict with one of guilty of manslaughter. So in that sense, he did overturn the guilty verdict and replaced it with guilty of a lesser crime.