Jury Nullification: Essential rights every American should understand

[HoughMade]

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.

...and it's still a bad idea.

 

[Rookie]

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.



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



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



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



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.

I'm going to make up an extremely out of the realm of reason (and extremely asinine) law, but I'd like your opinion.

Starting yesterday, anyone found guilty of jaywalking will be shot. Today, it goes all the way to SCOTUS, and they're fine with it because they decide its constitutional. Tomorrow, you're on the jury of State v. John Doe. There's video, there's multiple witnesses, it's an open and shut case - no question he jaywalked. You're sent to decide the verdict.

Guilty or not guilty?

 

[hornadylnl]

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.



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



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



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



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.

Then what's the point of seating a jury?

 

[hornadylnl]

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.

I sat on a jury where we pretty much did that. Defendant was popped for owi on prescription drugs that he was prescribed. The arresting officer made a complete ass of himself describing the arrest basically saying the driver was moments away from mowing down school children. Then we watched the dash cam footage. Officers testimony had almost no credibility after we watched it.

Only 1 or 2 jurors were on the fence to convict. The rest didn't believe he was guilty at all.

 

[HoughMade]

I'm going to make up an extremely out of the realm of reason (and extremely asinine) law, but I'd like your opinion.

Starting yesterday, anyone found guilty of jaywalking will be shot. Today, it goes all the way to SCOTUS, and they're fine with it because they decide its constitutional. Tomorrow, you're on the jury of State v. John Doe. There's video, there's multiple witnesses, it's an open and shut case - no question he jaywalked. You're sent to decide the verdict.

Guilty or not guilty?

I'm a real lawyer. I don't play hypothetical games.

What I can say is that I can imagine circumstances where my duties to a higher standard would override man's law.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm a real lawyer. I don't play hypothetical games.

What I can say is that I can imagine circumstances where my duties to a higher standard would override man's law.

So you afford yourself that right but not a jury?

 

[Rookie]

I'm a real lawyer. I don't play hypothetical games.

What I can say is that I can imagine circumstances where my duties to a higher standard would override man's law.

Somehow, I knew I wouldn't get a straight answer from you.

Wouldn't your "duties to a higher standard" essentially be jury nullification?

 

[rambone]

...and it's still a bad idea.

Why?

 

[actaeon277]

If there is no jury nullification, then why is there a jury?????

Why not just the judge making a decision?

 

[Rookie]

If there is no jury nullification, then why is there a jury?????

Why not just the judge making a decision?

We wouldn't need REAL lawyers?

 

[hornadylnl]

If the jury I sat on had voted to convict the defendant, no justice would have been served. The only thing accomplished would have been putting another notch in the prosecutors bed post.

The defendant was probably a first class douche bag and has no business operating a vehicle. But the zealousness of the prosecution to get a conviction was unnerving.

 

[2A_Tom]

Article 1 Section 19 In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

Please explain so that I might have a more perfect understanding.

 

[HoughMade]

Article 1 Section 19 In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

Please explain so that I might have a more perfect understanding.

Here we go again....

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm a real lawyer. I don't play hypothetical games.

What I can say is that I can imagine circumstances where my duties to a higher standard would override man's law.

So you afford yourself that right but not a jury?

Care to answer this? Why can you override mans law but a juror cannot?

 

[HoughMade]

Somehow, I knew I wouldn't get a straight answer from you.

Wouldn't your "duties to a higher standard" essentially be jury nullification?

It must be nice to not have to think about complex issues.

Something that may be a bad idea 99% of the time may be necessary 1% of the time. That doesn't mean we start acting like the 1% is the norm and we have to start telling juries to ignore the law. These crazy @ss hypotheticals with no basis in reality are the stuff of children. Be realistic.

I believe in working within the system. Promoting the idea that we should just ignore laws we do not agree with in situations that are not in extremis strikes me as the type of thing petulant children do when they don't get their way.

Here's a crazy thought, start winning elections; start getting laws changed; start winning, less whining.

To make it simple- if there is truly no other way to save a life from an unjust execution, I would indeed exercise jury nullification. I would not exercise it simply because i did not like the place the legislature had drawn a line.

 

[mrjarrell]

Here we go again....

You're assuming that we care what some judge said, opposed to what the state Constitution plainly says and that hundreds of years of common law have held. Sorry if we refuse to buy what you're selling.

 

[HoughMade]

You're assuming that we care what some judge said, opposed to what the state Constitution plainly says and that hundreds of years of common law have held. Sorry if we refuse to buy what you're selling.

Buy it, don't buy. I don't care. That is the way that provision is viewed and applied. Your theoretical view of what it means carries no weight in court. You are, of course, free to think anything you want.

 

[mrjarrell]

Guess in your world the 2nd Amendment doesn't say what it says, either. Jury Nullification is the law of the land in Indiana, and the rest of the country. Despite what any berobed lawyer says. The language is as plain as day and needs no translation through a third party.

 

[level.eleven]

I sat on a jury where we pretty much did that. Defendant was popped for owi on prescription drugs that he was prescribed. The arresting officer made a complete ass of himself describing the arrest basically saying the driver was moments away from mowing down school children. Then we watched the dash cam footage. Officers testimony had almost no credibility after we watched it.

Only 1 or 2 jurors were on the fence to convict. The rest didn't believe he was guilty at all.

This isn't nullification. You examined evidence and reached a verdict.

 

[Bunnykid68]

How about this then? No man may seduce and corrupt an unmarried girl, or else he risks five years in prison. What if you were on that jury?