I know the basic principles(habeas corpus, etc.) are, but would individual judgements count as well ? Would a judgement from an British court count, prior to 1776 ?
Unless, of course there are other subsequent Supreme Court rulings on the issue. Say like Sparf v. United States.
“t is the duty of the court to instruct the jury as to the law, and it is the duty of the jury to follow the law, as it is laid down by the court.”
“We cannot give our sanction to any rule that will lead to such a result. We must hold firmly to the doctrine that in the courts of the United States it is the duty of juries in criminal cases to take the law from the court, and apply that law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence. Upon the court rests the responsibility of declaring the law; upon the jury, the responsibility of applying the law so declared to the facts as they, upon their conscience, believe them to be. Under any other system, the courts, although established in order to declare the law, would for every practical purpose be eliminated from our system of government as instrumentalities devised for the protection equally of society and of individuals in their essential rights. When that occurs our government will cease to be a government of laws, and become a government of men. Liberty regulated by law is the underlying principle of our institutions.”
“Notwithstanding the declarations of eminent jurists and of numerous courts, as disclosed in the authorities cited, it is sometimes confindently asserted that they all erred when adjudging that the rule at common law was that the jury, in criminal cases, could not properly disregard the law as given by the court. We are of opinion that the law in England at the date of our separation from that country was as declared in the authorities we have cited. The contrary view rests, as we think, in large part, upon expressions of certain judges and writers, enforcing the principle that when the question is compounded of law and fact a general verdict, ex necessitate, disposes of the case in hand, both as to law and fact. That is what Lord Somers meant when he said in his essay on ‘The Security of Englishmen’s Lives, or the Trust, Power, and Duty of the Grand Juries of England,’ that jurors only ‘are the judges from whose sentence the indicted are to expect life or death,’ and that, ‘by finding guilty or not guilty, they do complicately resolve both law and fact.’ In the speeches of many statesmen and in the utterances of many jurists will be found the general observation that when law and fact are ‘blended’ their combined consideration is for the jury, and a verdict of guilty or not guilty will determine both for the particular case in hand. But this falls far short of the contention that jury, in applying the law to the facts, may rightfully refuse to act upon the principles of law announced by the court.”
Sparf also has a long recitation of cases from England and the US, holding the opposite of the rhetoric in Zenger. Although the dissent has many also. But Sparf did pretty much decide the issue.
Of course. But I don’t think Sparf settles the issue as it is relevant to this thread. For one, it doesn’t (or hasn’t) applied to the several states that instruct their juries on their power to decide the law. As noted, The Wire takes place in one of those states. But even outside those states, it seems that all Sparf really settled is whether a federal judge can instruct a jury on its power of nullification. That doesn’t answer the question of what kinds of arguments a defense attorney can make or whether a juror’s decision to nullify is itself unlawful.
It would be strange indeed for several state bar associations to allow defenses with the intentional collateral effect of nullification if the matter were as thoroughly settled as you suggest.
I think the following law review articles present a fair view of the state of the law:
Or, to play devils advocate.
Which is more important to you:[ul]
[li]Your sworn word[/li][li]Preventing a dumbass from suffering the consequences of deliberately and knowingly breaking some ludricrously harsh laws for no reason other than personal gratification or profit[/li][/ul]
It’s not as if anybody in the US is a stranger to the idea that drugs=>Hassles From The Authorities. And drugs aren’t like being black, gay or a woman, where you can claim that you are being oppressed just because of who or what you are. If the drug laws are The Stoopid, everyone has the same four options:
[ol]
[li]Get them changed[/li][li]Emigrate[/li][li]Avoid Drugs[/li][li]Go ahead and face the consequences if you get caught[/li][/ol]
Trying to game the legal system so people escape the law based on your personal definition of what is a ‘victimless crime’ seems like a cop-out.
Slaphead, it’s not just about drug laws. Consider it the legal equivalent of the 2nd Amendment. I may not want to overthrow the government, I may not want to overturn a drug conviction.
But, for the dignity of mankind, it’s a good thing we have the power to do so.
Who said this was just about drug laws? Explain to me how you prevent a jury of Stormfront members from using this technique to allow someone walk on a charge of murdering a black man. Or to tear huge holes in the rape laws, or civil rights generally, or any other law which some segment of the population would prefer not to have enforced.
Well, there’s always challenging of jury members. I’d like to see the defense allow Stormfront members in a trial like that.
Sorry. Legal system is biased in favor of letting the guilty go free rather than the innocent be hanged. I know, I know, you want perfect justice.
Ain’t any such thing. Any tool of need can be used wrongly.
:rolleyes: Fine. They’re not Stormfront members, they’re a bunch of seemingly upstanding local citizens who believe that the murder of a black is just fine and dandy, and who go into the trial with no intention to do anything other than aquit. Or they’re a bunch of old geezers who go into a rape trial convinced that anyone wearing an above-the-knee skirt deserves to get raped, no matter what the law says. Or any other hypothetical you care to dream up. You say it’s fine for a juror to go into the courtroom with no intention of applying the law, and lie when asked about such an intention. I’m curious as to how you would feel about getting strung up on this particular petard yourself? What happens if the guy who mugs you for your underwear walks because the jury think that anyone with eyebrows like E-Sabbath must secretly enjoy having their undies taken away?
No, I’m not that stupid. I’d just appreciate it if people would make at least a token effort to pretend to be members of a civilised society. I.e. abide by the rules that have been agreed, rather than simply ignoring anything that they find personally inconvenient. You think people should be free to ignore the drug laws, my amateur DJ neighbour thinks that the noise regulations are a total downer and he has an inalienable human right to pop pills and play ear-splitting techno for 72 hours at a time, some teenage oiks think anyone with a few piercings deserve a kicking. Personally, I think you’re all suffering from the same sense of entitlement, namely that you should get to dictate exactly what rules are applied to the rest of your fellow citizens.
I don’t agree with the OP’s premise as civil disobediance, it’s lying to accomplish something contrary to a set of laws that you personally do not agree with.
However, I am also in favor of treatment programs (drug courts) for users and possibly low-level dealers, but you can’t let high-level cocaine dealers off the hook.
Marijuana should be decriminalized, though. It is arguably less harmful than alcohol, which of course is (and should remain) legal.
Interesting you should say this. Alcohol causes massive social, pysical and economic harm in every country where it is widespread. Together with tobaco it is the poster child for how legalisation does not eliminate the damage done by drugs. So if tobacco and alcohol are legal, then why not cocaine, heroin, marijuana or anything else? Conversely, if it’s fine and dandy to be British-American Tobacco or SAB Miller, making billions from these products, then why not legalise being a high-level cocaine dealer?
I just want to say that if your examples were meant to alienate me, they failed miserably. I completely side with the criminals in each case*
*Can we add people with generic tattoos to to the beatlist?
Exactly. I would vote for that in a heartbeat.
A very relevant judicial opinion out today: http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/rulings/cr/2006/6cr22moj040108.pdf
i would be quite surprised if Weinstein’s… intriguing new theory that jury’s MUST be told about mandatory minimimum sentences, is held up on appeal.
I’ll defer to Orin Kerr on the opinion: “Polizzi reads less like a judicial decision than a 266-page book of opinion essays.” And “The most obvious difficulty with Judge Weinstein’s decsion is that the perceived spirit of the Supreme Court’s latest decisions doesn’t trump otherwise binding precedents simply because older precedents may be in some conceptual tension with new cases.”
There is a reason that the whole “jury” idea came about…
Perjury is not a good idea, if for nothing else, your word should be worth something. So I would not lie in order to get empaneled. On the other hand, if the prosecutor doesn’t ask certain questions, I see no reason to answer them. 
Something I resent a lot is the notion that you HAVE to do what the judge tells you. Poppycock. My vote is my vote. If I’m just buttcrack wrong, the judge can overturn (if that’s within his/her purview), or the case can go into appeals. But if, at some point during the trial, I decide that prosecuting this person is out of line, then it is my legal right and moral duty to express my displeasure in the way one does when in a democracy: I vote.
Please. Pointing out that jury nullification can be misused? Find me something that can’t be misused. And that’s a strawman; nullification is not something that most people will do without some serious misgivings. There hasn’t been any rash of JN because most people try to work within the standard courtroom instructions. The jury is (in theory) the final bulwark against tyrannical imposition by the state (such as jailing somebody for something that shouldn’t be a crime).
I’ll get down off my high-horse now
Another thing is, there is no appeal from a finding of not guilty. So, if you happen to convince the other 11 people to go along with you, it can’t be appealed.
Hmph. In Shannon v. US, the Supreme Court said:
An accused has no right to a jury instruction on the sentencing consequences of a guilty verdict. Judge Weinstein’s opinion runs directly counter to binding precedent, and I will be very surprised if it’s upheld.
I’m reading Judge Weinstein’s opinion now.
Holy crap. He accepts the verdict and then sua sponte starts making a appellate record for nullification. I’m amazed the prosecution was able to hold itself to one objection.
You’re a better man than me. That sucker’s a novel. I stole the quote from Volokh Conspiracy. Maybe it will get upheld because the court of appeals is too lazy to read it.
I agree that its unlikely to be upheld, but I think his argument at least is that the most recent precedent is moving away from the late 19th/early 20th century opinions toward a more old-school idea of the jury.
I’m assuming that they’ve been in front of Weinstein more than a few times and have realized the fruitlessness of arguing. You can only bang your head against a judicial brick wall for so long.