Sure fire way to avoid serving on a Jury?

Great Debates
81

Snuffinb?! :smiley:

No I simply brought that up to admit that I have a bias where the criminal justice system is concerned. That bias leads me to want to view not just the case but also the facts of the law itself. I think that in a case where I had to serve and I thought the law was morally wrong, or the potential sentence unjust, I’d have to follow the courage of my convictions.

::snip::

I’m not a member nor have I ever handed out pamphlets advocating it. It’s a concept I became aware of in college, and a concept I believe in.

Like Freedom I have a particular abhorrence for Drug Laws and the harsh penalties inflicted on basically low-level dealers and those charged with possession. I am advocating for change. I belong to several groups that advocate a change, however, it will not prevent me from throwing my own monkey wrench in the works, should I serve on a jury in such a case.

82

Stuffinb, (did I get it right this time?) as long as you appreciate that what you are contemplating in an act of vandalism, nothing more and nothing less, then you go ahead and do what you want. Do me one favor, however. If you ever end up on a jury pool and are questioned by the judge (in the federal system) or the opposing lawyers in the selection process, when you are asked if you will set aside your personal views and biases and adhere to the instructions, please have the integrity to say that you will not because you are willing to set public policy for the whole community and that you think that your opinion should be imposed on everyone else, and the political process be damned. That, incidentally, is a sure fire way to be non-selected to serve on the jury.

83

I have a problem with this; you describe pretty much my situation, when I was discharged from duty. (Please note that getting sent back to work was NOT the goal.)

I did not have an objection to on any of the laws. What I did have was a problem with the instruction that I should ignore my sense of right and wrong and instead use what was handed to me. Without specific knowledge of the laws, how could I in good conscience agree to them sight unseen?

As I said at first, to me, that smacks of “just following orders”. Nuremburg, anyone? And if I don’t object to such instructions, to you it means I think “my opinion should be imposed on everyone else”?

Sorry. I refuse to do the wrong thing because it follows the right process.

84

DingDingDing. It only took us 80 posts before the Nazis somehow get mentioned. The usual pariah for any argument finally make their appearance.

Seawitch, the Judge was only questioning you about the law. You can use your sense of right and wrong and your common sense and life experience to determine the facts of the case. You can disbelieve everything a police officer says, you can decide that after all the state didn’t prove their case, you can decide that there was some defense raised that you believe in. The only question was whether you would follow the law.

85

Hamlet -

We’d get a lot farther here if you’d read what I said. The question came from the prosecuting attorney, not from the judge. And he did not simply ask whether I could follow instructions - he asked if I could follow instructions regardless of my personal beliefs. There is a difference. Do you honestly not see it?

BTW, I mentioned Nuremburg in my first post. That’s back on page one. I brought it up because it was the first thing that came to mind when the attorney was questioning me. Thanks for interpreting it as an insincere defense on my part, though. Way to be impartial.

86

Rest assured that I have no intention on lying should I ever be called for jury duty. However, please note that I also consider your stand to lack integrity and conviction as well. Who’s right, the man who follows the law, because the law is supreme, or the man who follows his moral sense of right and wrong?

Public policy and the political process most often help those in the position of drafting said laws and policies. Those laws do not necessarily protect all people. Your all or nothing stance is untenable for me.

87

And that my friends is a topic that deserves it’s own thread.
I’m on my way out the door, if I don’t see it posted when Ireturn, I will start a thread asking exactly that.

88

seawitch, I think that some of the things you are posting seem to be contradictory.

doesn’t seem to fit very well with

Now I’d like to explain what I see as contradictory. I suspect that what the prosecutor had in mind, is that you would be given the law as a set of instructions - text of the offense, relevant definitions, and the actual language of the indictment. What prosecutors and judges mean when they talk about following the law is applying those instructions to the facts presented at trial. Fundamentally, as a part of that, it is that you will apply that law to the facts.
What I seem to be reading, is that you think you should have been an automaton. First, I quote that your personal beliefs shouldn’t be applied, but you also suggest that you were told to throw out your notions of right and wrong. I’d be surprised to learn that a prosecutor told you that jurors aren’t allowed to have notions of right or wrong. I’d very much like to know what was asked of you, as best as you can recollect.

Being a juror is more than following orders - its giving meaning to an oath that jurors give to follow the law. Jurors are judges of facts, not judges of law.

Ultimately, in the US system, if a jury says not guilty, their verdict is irrevocable. This means that if a jury wants to disregard their instructions, no recourse exists. But, regardless of the direction they go, by disregarding the law they disregard their oath.

89

The problem with jury nullification is that it encourages people to ignore the law in their capacity as jurors – something none of us have the luxury of doing in our capacity as citizens.

The way our system works is that the legislature, on behalf of the people, passes the laws. Presumably, the majority of the people support the laws as passed; if not, they may work to have them repealed. Those who do not agree are expected to live with the decision anyway, under the purest majoritarian theory that once the the majority makes a decision the minority is expected to accede – or to fight through means other than subverting the system entirely.

Now, you may believe that prostitution is the scourge of modern morality and that prostitutes should be thrown in a rat-infested jail for life on the first offense. I may think that prostitution is the acme of the excercise of personal freedom and business acumen and that prostitutes should be given tax cuts, if not medals. We cannot both expect to impose our beliefs and morals on the collective we call society and expect it to continue to function. So how do we solve the problem? We take a big ol’ vote and the one of us that loses works like hell to change the subsequent law – a law we loath – without undermining the system (the rule of law) that protects all of us.

Truly unjust laws dealing with fundamental freedoms are subject to Constitutional scrutiny and will be thrown out. What most jury nullification proponents want to talk about is drugs, but – sorry to inform you – you do not have a fundamental right to do drugs. I realize that some people think we all ought to have that right, but the fact is that we don’t, and the proliferation of anti-drug laws indicates that the majority of society doesn’t think we should have such a right. By exercising jury nullification, a person attempts to impose his or her personal opinion upon the process in the face of a clear indication – a law – that the majority of society does not agree with him or her. What this says is: To hell with the demoncratic process and the Rule of Law. I will personally decide which laws should be enforced and which laws should not. I fail to see how anyone could imagine that would be a good idea.

As has already been pointed out, advising a jury of its right to ignore the law is a frighteningly double-edged sword. BARE, as a person of color, I wonder how fabulous you’d think it was if a jury of six or twelve white guys decided to acquit the man who assaulted you – and in the face of overwhelming, uncontroverted evidence that he did assault you – because they don’t think beating up people of color should be illegal, and to hell with what the rest of society thinks.

The fact that you as a juror have the ability to engage in jury nullification does not mean it is a good idea, or that the court has an obligation to advise you of your ability to subvert the very system you are being asked to support via your participation. A “fully-informed” juror is one who has all the facts and the applicable law; it is not one who is told that he or she should personally be deciding whether the law, duly passed by society with the expectation of enforcement, should really be enforced.

Are there times when jury nullification is a necessary evil? Sure. Every individual must decide what is truly unconscionable and what is so morally and ethically offensive as to be unbearable, and a person would be perfectly justified in refusing to accede to the enforcement of such a law – should that person find his- or herself on a jury where he or she is asked to. But to go into the process with the intent to nullify and to make a liar of oneself in order to secure the opportunity to nullify . . . that I don’t understand.

SEAWITCH, it seems to me that the obvious answer to “would you ignore your morals and ethical beliefs to enforce the law as told to you?” is “No” – which is why I personally can’t imagine anyone asking such a question. For some, a reasonable answer to “Can you enforce the law as given you?” is “Depends on the law.” There is nothing wrong with that. There is, however, and IMO, something really wrong with saying you can when you know you can’t. Generally, it seems to me that if you (general you) have to lie to achieve your “right” result, you might want to rethink whether your result is really right – not for you personally, but for society, because when you undertake to act as a juror, you are acting not just for yourself but on behalf of The People.

90

Just so we quit talking about hypothetical moral convictions, here is a model instruction on the duty of a juror in criminal cases:

"When you begin your deliberations, you should select a foreman or forewoman. He or she shall see that your deliberations are carried on in an orderly manner, that the issues are fully and freely discussed, and that every juror is given an opportunity to express his or her views.

"In order to return a verdict, each juror must agree to it. Your verdict must be unanimous.

"It is your duty as jurors to consult with one another and reach an agreement, if you can do so without compromising your individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but do so only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with other jurors.

"During your deliberations, do not hesitate to reexamine your views and change your opinion if convinced it is wrong. But do not change your opinion as to the weight or effect of the evidence just because it is the opinion of other jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict.

“Remember you are the judges of the facts. Your sole duty is to find the truth and to do justice.”

And:

"Decide the facts from the evidence. Consider the using your observations, common sense and experience. Try to reconcile any conflicts in the evidence; but if you cannot, accept the evidence you find more believable.

"In determining the facts, you may have to decide what you believe. You may believe all, part or none of any witness’s testimony.

“There are many factors which you may consider in deciding what testimony to believe, for example whether the testimony is reasonable and consistent with other evidence you believe; whether a witness has made inconsistent statements; the witness’s appearance, conduct, age, intelligence, memory and knowledge of the facts; the witness’s interest in the trial, their motive, candor, bias and prejudice.”

And:

“You must determine the defendant’s guilt or innocence from the evidence and the law in these instructions.”
Does that answer any questions? Does that require a juror to submit robot-like to anything?

While some of our people have expressed a dislike of statutes criminalizing drug possession and use and an intention to hang any jury they are on the hears a drug case, this strikes me as something akin to a school pep rally in which people who will never be on the field fervently express an intention to thrash the Bobcats (or whoever). The concern for judges and trial lawyers is not that a juror will have a secret agenda to subvert some substantive criminal prohibition, but that a juror will require more proof than the law requires for conviction or acquittal. The prosecutor fears a juror who wants proof beyond all doubt. The defense counsel fears the juror who wants positive proof that the defendant is innocent. In almost all cases it is that sort of personal conviction that the jury selection questions are directed toward. The full question is whether the juror will make the defendant to prove his innocence when the judge instructs that the defendant does not have to prove anything or will the juror require the prosecution to prove beyond all doubt when the judge instructs on proof beyond reasonable doubt.

91

I believe that those three statements cogently and eloquently sum up the issue at hand. Bravo, Jodi.

92

(Good post.)

I was pretty surprised myself. The examples from Jodi and Robb were phrased in ways I wouldn’t argue with. Heck, IANAL, so to give a fair hearing, I’d need to be instructed on the law.

Perhaps I had an inexperienced attorney asking the questions. Perhaps, since I didn’t hear any of the other jurors asked this in quite the same way, I was being ruled out as a potential rabble-rouser. (Which is, I admit, a fair description.) Either way, it was an isolated event, and it really isn’t fair to read too much into it.

If it happens again next time I’m called, I’ll start to wonder.

93

bare

Are we letting this thread die without your answers?