Jury Nullification

[Henry]

The topic came up in another thread and may be worth further discussion.

In order to avoid hijacking that thread, I thought it may be best to open another.




What are your thoughts on nullification by jury?

Does it it have a role in the judicial system where the jury was designed to be a check on the state?

Have you been on jury where the jury nullified or considered nullification?

 

[ATM]

Juries are to judge the facts and the law, whether they are instructed to do so or not.

Certainly a check upon the state when they undertake to exercise the full measure of this duty.

I've not yet had the privilege to serve as a juror.

 

[AA&E]

Juries are to judge the facts and the law, whether they are instructed to do so or not.

Certainly a check upon the state when they undertake to exercise the full measure of this duty.

I've not yet had the privilege to serve as a juror.

Nor do I suspect you would ever be allowed to serve on a jury if you acknowledge the rights of jury nullification. Prosecutors aren't going to stack the deck against themselves...

 

[Twangbanger]

I bet a lot of jurors employ it in a semi-subconscious fashion without realizing the concept has a name.

I'd also suspect mentioning it by name is a dandy topic for getting yourself out of serving on a jury. On drug cases, most people seem to get off by saying either "I hates them drugs, they destroyed my _____" (fill in blank with relative), or "I think drugs should be legal" (assuming they really believe that, and it's not just that nobody thinks it's their civic duty to serve anymore).

 

[femurphy77]

I've served far too many times but never saw this in effect. This statement is based on the fact that the numerous times I've served vs hundreds of other people I know that have never even been called up.

I did get out of what I knew would be a long trial one time by telling the defense attorney that I believed his client was guilty "otherwise he wouldn't be sitting there"!

 

[T.Lex]

I agree that this is probably worthy of its own thread.

In Indiana, I think jurors kinda instinctively know they can do their own thing. IMHO, that's why there are some really messed up verdicts sometimes. And hung juries. One person just doesn't think it should be a conviction. So, they hang.

 

[edporch]

The topic came up in another thread and may be worth further discussion.

In order to avoid hijacking that thread, I thought it may be best to open another.




What are your thoughts on nullification by jury?

Does it it have a role in the judicial system where the jury was designed to be a check on the state?

Have you been on jury where the jury nullified or considered nullification?

In the early days of this country, juries were told that in addition to judging the innocence or guilt of the defendant, they had the power to judge the rightness or wrongness of the law itself.
This is a check and balance against the government making BS laws and then railroading people with them.

So what is called "jury nullification" is just another name for a power that juries have had since the beginning that many of the powers that be wish they didn't.

 

[Henry]

So here is a hypothetical....


You happened to be selected to serve on a jury. You learn that a citizen has been charged with carrying a concealed pistol into a high school. The evidence is clear and indisputable.


The man did indeed carry a concealed pistol into the high school. He was there to pick up his daughter who had become ill. In his haste to get to his daughter and through his preoccupation with her well being, he hurried into the school and forgot about the 1911 he carries regularly holstered under his coat. A school "security guard" noticed the gun "printing" when the man was standing at the counter in school's office signing his daughter out and helping her carry our her belongings.


The "security officer" when through "proper procedure" to have the man arrested by leos. A prosecutor who is emphatically anti gun decided to make an example of this man and pressed for the maximum penalty under the law.


The judge explains the law to the jury and the jury is dismissed to a back room for deliberation.


As a juror, do you judge the man guilty and convict him of a crime?

 

[88GT]

So here is a hypothetical....


You happened to be selected to serve on a jury. You learn that a citizen has been charged with carrying a concealed pistol into a high school. The evidence is clear and indisputable.


The man did indeed carry a concealed pistol into the high school. He was there to pick up his daughter who had become ill. In his haste to get to his daughter and through his preoccupation with her well being, he hurried into the school and forgot about the 1911 he carries regularly holstered under his coat. A school "security guard" noticed the gun "printing" when the man was standing at the counter in school's office signing his daughter out and helping her carry our her belongings.


The "security officer" when through "proper procedure" to have the man arrested by leos. A prosecutor who is emphatically anti gun decided to make an example of this man and pressed for the maximum penalty under the law.


The judge explains the law to the jury and the jury is dismissed to a back room for deliberation.


As a juror, do you judge the man guilty and convict him of a crime?

Nope. But I've also said I wouldn't convict for situations where people have killed others either.

 

[bingley]

What if the man is an illegal alien?

 

[BogWalker]

Jury nullification should be an important part of the judicial system, but it is rarely employed. I think that's quite the shame.

 

[Henry]

What if the man is an illegal alien?

Who said he wasn't? LOL

 

[Henry]

Jury nullification should be an important part of the judicial system, but it is rarely employed. I think that's quite the shame.

Indeed.

 

[mrjarrell]

Most people in Indiana aren't even aware that jury nullification is set in stone in the state Constitution. If more were aware of it, (and understood it) there's be a lot more justice meted out by juries.

 

[T.Lex]

I think the spirit of jury nullification is employed more than you guys think. Anecdotally, in almost every close case, it seems like juries settle on what they think is the "right" answer instead of just the "legal" one.

This specific gun charge scenario is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. At least in Indiana.

Also, for purposes of the hypothetical, potential jurors are asked if they will follow the law, including the instructions of the judge. For you to be on the jury, you would have to state under oath that you would do that.

So, after promising to follow the law and the judge's instructions, you would do the opposite?

ETA: quick googling=
http://www.peoplevstate.com/?p=895

Case here:
http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/archive/05300303.rdr.html

Didn't realize the attorney on the case was my friend, Greg Bowes.

This point is best illustrated by a case decided forty-one years after Article I, Section 19 was ratified. The trial court gave the following instruction:
You, gentlemen, in this case, are the judges of law as well as of the facts. You can take the law as given and explained to you by the court, but, if you see fit, you have the legal and constitutional right to reject the same, and construe it for yourselves.

Blaker v. State, 130 Ind. 203 (1892). On appellate review the Supreme Court approved the instruction but admonished, “the Constitution gives to juries in criminal cases the right to determine the law as well as the facts. It does not, however, give to them the right to disregard the law.” Id. at 204-05.

 

[Henry]

I think the spirit of jury nullification is employed more than you guys think. Anecdotally, in almost every close case, it seems like juries settle on what they think is the "right" answer instead of just the "legal" one.

This specific gun charge scenario is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. At least in Indiana.

Also, for purposes of the hypothetical, potential jurors are asked if they will follow the law, including the instructions of the judge. For you to be on the jury, you would have to state under oath that you would do that.

So, after promising to follow the law and the judge's instructions, you would do the opposite?

ETA: quick googling=
Ignoring the Right to Ignore the Law in Indiana [Updated] | People v. StateCase here:
Converted file rdr

Didn't realize the attorney on the case was my friend, Greg Bowes.

What would you do as a juror in the hypothetical case if you were a juror?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Most people in Indiana aren't even aware that jury nullification is set in stone in the state Constitution. If more were aware of it, (and understood it) there's be a lot more justice meted out by juries.

So, we are assuming/pretending that Holden does not exist for purposes of this exercise?

 

[Trigger Time]

So here is a hypothetical....


You happened to be selected to serve on a jury. You learn that a citizen has been charged with carrying a concealed pistol into a high school. The evidence is clear and indisputable.


The man did indeed carry a concealed pistol into the high school. He was there to pick up his daughter who had become ill. In his haste to get to his daughter and through his preoccupation with her well being, he hurried into the school and forgot about the 1911 he carries regularly holstered under his coat. A school "security guard" noticed the gun "printing" when the man was standing at the counter in school's office signing his daughter out and helping her carry our her belongings.


The "security officer" when through "proper procedure" to have the man arrested by leos. A prosecutor who is emphatically anti gun decided to make an example of this man and pressed for the maximum penalty under the law.


The judge explains the law to the jury and the jury is dismissed to a back room for deliberation.


As a juror, do you judge the man guilty and convict him of a crime?

I would not convict even if he intentionaly brought it into the school for protection reasons. The law is unconstitutional in my opinion.

 

[Trigger Time]

I also probably wouldn't vote to convict someone who shot a thief stealing their car. But I can't make guarentees

 

[Trigger Time]

What if the man is an illegal alien?

Don't drop the soap in prison