Jury Nullification: Essential rights every American should understand

[dross]

If you as a citizen have the right to judge the law as well as the facts when you're empowered as a juror, then are you morally liable if you lie when asked to pre-judge the law in favor of the way the government views the law? I would argue that you are not. If the thief asks if you have any hidden valuables, you are under no moral obligation to tell him the truth.

 

[DragonGunner]

Straight from the Indiana Constitution. `Nuf sed.

I learned some of this from the jury handbook years ago, the jury has more power than the judge.....so it always amuses me when a judge says you HAVE to judge the way I show you and FOLLOW all my guidelines. Lots of good history to go along with this.

Good job to the OP for bringing this up for the unlearned who never knew this.

 

[Chesh97]

Rephrased, you're asking, "What if the juror agrees with the Prosecutor?" Obviously then they will vote guilty. However, it takes a unanimous verdict to convict the defendant. It only takes one unconvinced juror to set the defendant free.

Put yourself in a juror's shoes in New York. Would you send a man to prison for loading 8 bullets in his pistol magazine, instead of 7? That is a juror's chance to prevent someone from getting oppressed.

Yeah, I see what your saying. I'd have to do just that given the circumstances.

 

[cobber]

Just the opposite occurs in most jurisdictions nowadays. The judge stacks the jury against the defendant. Thankfully the Indiana Constitution allows for jury nullification and there isn't a damned thing a judge can do about it.

Judges stack juries? How do they do that exactly?

 

[rambone]

The Chicago Tribune trashes jury nullification. I guess we should install conscienceless robots into the jury booth.

The dangers of jury nullification - chicagotribune.com

The law may indeed be unfair, as some laws are. But it's not the right or duty of jurors to waive sections of the criminal code with which they disagree. The promotion of jury nullification rests on the assumption that 12 randomly chosen individuals are entitled to override the democratically expressed will of the citizenry.

 

[HoughMade]

Straight from the Indiana Constitution. `Nuf sed.

Really? Does this mean the jury can ignore the law, or determine what the law is when applying it to facts? An Indiana case cite would be much appreciated.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Indiana Code ./const/art1.html-./const/art1.html-./const/art1.html

 

[HoughMade]

Indiana Code ./const/art1.html-./const/art1.html-./const/art1.html

That's not a case cite. It's a Constitutional provision that people seem to be assuming they understand.

 

[mrjarrell]

That's not a case cite. It's a Constitutional provision that people seem to be assuming they understand.

So, do you understand it better than we do? Let's hear your take on what is pretty plain language.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Converted file rdr

Here is what I found on Google, havent read it yet

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Let's hear your take on what is pretty plain language.

We are hosed.

 

[rambone]

Really? Does this mean the jury can ignore the law, or determine what the law is when applying it to facts? An Indiana case cite would be much appreciated.

Yes, really. That is one of the checks and balances in the system. If the legislature is oppressive, if the cops are oppressive, if the prosecutors are oppressive, there is one last vestige of hope to save the accused from being crushed unjustly. A juror with a conscience.

Its a vote, and can be cast for any reason, or no reason.

 

[mrjarrell]

This seems to lay out the case reasonably well.
Ignoring the Right to Ignore the Law in Indiana [Updated] | People v. State

As for this, well it isn't in Latin or Esperanto, so I'm going with it says exactly what it says and I will act accordingly.

Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

 

[HoughMade]

If we’re going to point to Article 1 sec. 19 of the Indiana Constitution for support of the notion of jury nullification, I think it’s kind of important to look at what our Indiana Supreme Court actually says that means.

The complaint about this instruction is that it tells the jurors to administer the law as they actually find it to be, regardless of whether or not they think the law is what it should be. This admonition is not only good for jurors, but also for courts and all persons who have to do with the administration of laws, as well as for citizens who should obey laws. Laws are made to be applied and enforced, and no one has a right to set aside that which is, and to substitute what he thinks should be, except the law-making body elected for that purpose.

Cunacoff v. State, 193 Ind. 62, 63 (Ind. 1923).

Neither the jury nor the judge has a "right" to disregard the law.

Beavers v. State, 236 Ind. 549, 561 (Ind. 1957).

”’While the jury, under such a provision, have the right to determine both the law and the facts, it is not strictly true that they are the sole judges of the law of the case. Such a provision means that the jury have the right to determine all questions of law applicable to such matters as they are required to consider in making up their verdict. It is their duty to apply the law to the facts of the case, and they have to be judge of both, to come to a conclusion as to both. But the constitutionality of a statute under which a person is prosecuted is a matter for the court to determine, and it is the duty of the jury to accept the court's determination thereof.' 53 Am. Jur., Trial, § 279, p. 236.

"It is quite apparent that legally and factually it is erroneous to say that the jury is the 'exclusive' judge of the law in criminal cases regardless of what may have been inadvertently stated in the past by this court as a result of very little, if any, examination of this question."

Thus, we see the jury is, in fact, confined to the existing law of the State in making a determination in a criminal case. It was never intended that the legislative prerogative to define crime be extended to the jury.

Denson v. State, 263 Ind. 315, 319-320 (Ind. 1975); quoting, Beavers, supra..

Johnson first complains the trial court did not fully explain the jury's function because it did not advise the jury what it could consider in determining the law. Johnson claims the jury should have been instructed that in determining the law the jury may consider the Constitution of this State, the common law, the decisions of courts of last resort, the instructions of the court and the arguments of counsel, as stated in Johnson's tendered final instruction no. 1. However, the trial court gave final instruction no. 15, which reads:

“The Constitution of the State of Indiana makes the jury the judges of both the law and the facts in criminal cases. Though this means that you are to determine the law for yourself, it does not mean that you have the right to make, repeal, disregard, or ignore the law as it exists. The instructions of the court are the best sources as to the law applicable to this case.

This instruction is a correct statement of the law and adequately explains the role of the jury.”

Johnson v. State, 518 N.E.2d 1073, 1076 (Ind. 1988).

Checks and balances? elections, judicial review, refusal of the executive to enforce....not a mob of 12 deciding they don't like laws the duly elected legislature enacted, upheld by the judiciary and enforced by the executive.

 

[Rookie]

Converted file rdr

Here is what I found on Google, havent read it yet

Although there may be some value in instructing Indiana jurors that they have a right to “refuse to enforce the law’s harshness when justice so requires,” the source of that right cannot be found in Article I, Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution

Any penalty for drug convictions are too harsh.

Not guilty.

 

[HoughMade]

Converted file rdr

Here is what I found on Google, havent read it yet

Well, that is an interesting cite.

This Court's latest pronouncement on the subject is correct: "It is improper for a court to instruct a jury that they have a right to disregard the law. Notwithstanding Article 1, Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution, a jury has no more right to ignore the law than it has to ignore the facts in a case." Bivins v. State, 642 N.E.2d 928, 946 (Ind. 1994) (citation omitted). The trial court in this case properly refused to give Holden's tendered instruction.

Holden v. State, 788 N.E.2d 1253, 1255 (Ind. 2003)


...and in case you didn’t catch what went on in that decision, this pretty much sums it up:

Ronnie Holden seeks rehearing of our opinion in which we declared that Article I, Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution does not amount to a constitutionally permissible form of jury nullification. Holden v. State, 788 N.E.2d 1253 (Ind. 2003). Among other things Holden complains that we failed to address several issues raised before and decided by the Court of Appeals, whose Memorandum Decision was vacated once transfer was granted. Holden is correct. We therefore grant rehearing to summarily affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals on all issues except those addressed in our initial opinion. See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2). In all other respects the petition for rehearing is denied.

Holden v. State, 799 N.E.2d 538 (Ind. 2003)

 

[Bunnykid68]

But when it comes down to it, anyone can vote not guilty for any reason they want to.

 

[HoughMade]

But when it comes down to it, anyone can vote not guilty for any reason they want to.

That's true. No denying it.

 

[rambone]

Checks and balances? elections, judicial review, refusal of the executive to enforce....not a mob of 12 deciding they don't like laws the duly elected legislature enacted, upheld by the judiciary and enforced by the executive.

Jury nullification exists whether it appears in the constitution or not. It exists with or without the Supreme Court saying its OK. It exists despite your lack of approval.

If a trial is "fair" then the jurors are allowed to cast their votes free of coercion and threats.

 

[Trigger Time]

I've always hoped I'd be on a jury for a drug case. Because I wouldn't vote to convict most likely because I believe the laws against drugs are wrong.
Just typing this pretty much will eliminate me ever serving on one too unfortunately, but it needs said.