SO Lawyer types... Activist Juries?

[yermom]

is this true?

this article was 2 days late, btw ;)


“Jury nullification also goes back to the very beginning of our country, as one of the crucial rights our Founding Fathers wanted to protect. Our Founding Fathers wanted juries to be the final bulwark against tyrannical government laws. That’s why they emphasized the right to a jury trial in three of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. John Adams, second President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, third President and author of the Declaration of Independence, John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury all flatly stated that juries have the right and duty to judge not only the facts in a case, but also the law, according to their conscience.”

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24518.html

[jk the sooner fan]

jury nullification - exactly what the OJ jury did

can be good at times, but can also be very dangerous

[yermom]

i thought about the OJ trial, but it's not like they disagreed with the laws on murder...

somehow it turned into the white man trying to bring the black man down

it was like the jury finding him "not guilty" actually meant he was not guilty

[Tear Down This Wall]

Oh, boy...there could be a book written here. Let me just state for the record - just stay out of lawsuits and you won't have to worry about jury nullification.

THE END

[yermom]

i was thinking more along the lines of a rash of "not guilty" verdicts on pot cases...

can the judge stop a lawyer from telling a jury about this?

[jk the sooner fan]

i thought about the OJ trial, but it's not like they disagreed with the laws on murder...

somehow it turned into the white man trying to bring the black man down

it was like the jury finding him "not guilty" actually meant he was not guilty

the OJ verdict was more an indictment on the LAPD than anything else.....

[Tear Down This Wall]

A judge is supposed to give the juries specific instructions about what to consider and what not to consider regarding the evidence presented during the trial (and such).

That is, a judge is supposed to....

Now, what the jury does with those instructions is wholly a separate matter of discussion.

[Vaevictis]

It's true enough that it's enshrined in some state's Bill of Rights. From the Maryland Bill of Rights:


Art. 23. In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.

IIRC, you can thank jury nullification for truth being an absolute defense to libel and slander. (Zenger)


can the judge stop a lawyer from telling a jury about this?

It depends on the jurisdiction. But as I understand it, there's nothing from the federal point of view (US Constitution, federal law, etc) that says the judge can't take action to nip jury nullification in the bud (prohibiting lawyers from mentioning it, removing jurors that express an intent to nullify, etc); OTOH, as I understand it, there's quite a bit that says that if the jury elects to nullify and manages to return a verdict to that effect, there's not a hell of a lot you can do about it.

[TUSooner]

jury nullification - exactly what the OJ jury did

can be good at times, but can also be very dangerous

I do not think the OJ jury nullified any law. I think they just got suckered into rejecting the evidence. But who can say for sure, because that's how jury nullification looks.
Say picasso were on trial for possession of eleven-teen tons of marijuana. The evidence is uncontested that he possessed the weed and that the gubment proved every element of the offense. However, the jury of South Ovaltines, led by foreman Howzit, thinks there's nothing wrong with possessing a few tons of reefer "for personal use." But they can't go back into court and say, "Judge, we know the evidence is all against pic, and we know he committed the crime, but we think pot laws suck, so let him go." They may say exactly that amongst themselves during deliberations, but the act they would use to express that view would be a simple "not guilty" verdict. And that wouold be the end of that. The gubment can't appeal, and the jury cannot be required to justify or explain the verdict or the deliberations.

EDIT. I guess I should have read the thread.......

[jk the sooner fan]

well, you're the lawyer here, but its my opinion they ignored the evidence and sent out a verdict that was much more about the LAPD and some other peripheral stuff

i'd call that nullification - granted they didnt nullify the crime of murder, but they sure as hell ignored it to send their own message

[TUSooner]

well, you're the lawyer here, but its my opinion they ignored the evidence and sent out a verdict that was much more about the LAPD and some other peripheral stuff

i'd call that nullification - granted they didnt nullify the crime of murder, but they sure as hell ignored it to send their own message

I think you've convicned me that what they did qualfies as "nullification."
My piddling legal knowledge doesn't empower me to see inside their tiny minds, and the only thing that's sure is "not guilty" despite ample evidence.

[Penguin]

It's the best system of justice in the world. Are we saying that we should scrap the whole thing because of a handful of cases?

[yermom]

no, i'm saying more people should know this and deal with some of the dumb laws we have ;)

[85Sooner]

no, i'm saying more people should know this and deal with some of the dumb laws we have ;)


You are so right. There have been many cases that I have seen that if I had been on the jury I would have nullified. If I were on a case where a dad shot someone for molesting his kid, I don't give a damn if he was caught with the smoking gun in his hand. He gets off in my world.

[jk the sooner fan]

You are so right. There have been many cases that I have seen that if I had been on the jury I would have nullified. If I were on a case where a dad shot someone for molesting his kid, I don't give a damn if he was caught with the smoking gun in his hand. He gets off in my world.

that actually happened several years ago up in denver.......dad is at the airport waiting for the marshals to bring the perv that molested his kid from whereever they had captured/arrested him

dad is on a payphone acting indiscreetly and as they walk by, dad turns and caps perv in the head - DRT (dead right there)

the whole thing was caught on film........he never had to stand trial because the grand jury never indicted him

[85Sooner]

that actually happened several years ago up in denver.......dad is at the airport waiting for the marshals to bring the perv that molested his kid from whereever they had captured/arrested him

dad is on a payphone acting indiscreetly and as they walk by, dad turns and caps perv in the head - DRT (dead right there)

the whole thing was caught on film........he never had to stand trial because the grand jury never indicted him


I remmber that. It was the boys Karate teacher. Got everything that was coming to him. With the revolving door wwe see in our justice system I would not be surprised to see more of this. Just make damn sure the person is guilty before pulling the trigger.

[yermom]

I remmber that. It was the boys Karate teacher. Got everything that was coming to him. With the revolving door wwe see in our justice system I would not be surprised to see more of this. Just make damn sure the person is guilty before pulling the trigger.

that's what i was thinking...

[Penguin]

that actually happened several years ago up in denver.......dad is at the airport waiting for the marshals to bring the perv that molested his kid from whereever they had captured/arrested him

dad is on a payphone acting indiscreetly and as they walk by, dad turns and caps perv in the head - DRT (dead right there)

the whole thing was caught on film........he never had to stand trial because the grand jury never indicted him
Actually, that was in Baton Rouge in 1984. http://www.jodyplauche.com/

video http://youtube.com/watch?v=-o8IH073qJk

[AlbqSooner]

OK, My take on the OJ verdict. When F. Lee Bailey stood and asked Mark Furman, "Sir, have you ever used the word ******?" The case was at a crossroads. When Furman answered, "No, Sir." The case was over.

At that moment I knew Furman was lying. Bailey knew it, the jury knew it, everyone knew it.

As the case continued and the Defense asked about the handling of evidence by the 3 main detectives - Furman, VanAtter and some other guy - they all testified pretty consistently with each other. The jury KNEW Furman was a liar and as the defense questioned the veracity of the detectives' testimony the jury felt that if Furman was lying and the other two were agreeing with him, then they to must be lying. This created reasonable doubt enough that the verdict was determined by Furman lying about having used the racial epithet he did.

I suggest that had Furman answered, "Mr. Bailey, I am not proud of it but yes, I have used that term. I have used it in anger and I have used it in jokes. I have also told hispanic jokes, jewish jokes, pollack jokes, and even lawyer jokes. Again, I am not proud of it, but I have to admit that I have." In that event, the jury would have received the message that although they did not like the detective at all, he was honest. I suggest that if that had occured there would probably have been a different verdict.

Sad thing is, the Prosecutors knew what a loose cannon Furman was when they put him on. Apparently they did not drive home to him how important it was for him to admit his transgressions.

Jury nullification? I really don't think it fits this case. I suggest that the OJ case was simply one in which the prosecution gave the jurors reason to doubt the evidence which they presented.