Jury Nullification: Essential rights every American should understand

[HoughMade]

Did you not say that the courts have said jurors do not have a right of nullification?

No. I said that Article 1, sec. 19 of the Indiana Constitution does not equate to jury nullification under the law...and don't mistake court holdings for my beliefs.

 

[Trigger Time]

Yay for seduction and fornication! The cornerstones of society!

It's not about that. It's the false idea that just because it's the law it must be enforced.

 

[Rookie]

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.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

By the way, the system is broken. Too many people who think they're better than others have raped this country with insane feel good laws.

Well, you know as well as I do that as a practical matter it exists and always will. I just have a problem with ignoring the clear law because of personal belief. As I have explained, in extreme circumstances, I would, myself, engage in jury nullification, but there would have to be an injustice that cannot be dealt with in any other way and an injustice that went beyond my personal preference. In such cases, it should be obvious enough that no judge need give a specific instruction.

And that's where we differ in opinion. Some background on myself, I have never done any type of illegal drugs. The first time I smelled marijuana was during a controlled burn (law enforcement in the military). Why? Because, personally, I see no need in using drugs to change my mood. With that being said, the government has no right to dictate what people willingly put into their bodies. Any attempt to control a person's decision is unjust, regardless of what those high and mighty, college educated lawyers and politicians think. As it stands right now, there is no other way to fight besides jury nullification. Simple drug charges? Put me on a jury and I'll vote not guilty no matter what the evidence says.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Well, you know as well as I do that as a practical matter it exists and always will. I just have a problem with ignoring the clear law because of personal belief. As I have explained, in extreme circumstances, I would, myself, engage in jury nullification, but there would have to be an injustice that cannot be dealt with in any other way and an injustice that went beyond my personal preference. In such cases, it should be obvious enough that no judge need give a specific instruction.

Clear law? Any law that fits the status quo of the day. Someone going to jail over a law that violates nothing more than personal morals of some people should be an injustice.

 

[rambone]

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

These crazy @ss hypotheticals with no basis in reality are the stuff of children. Be realistic.

What if I just don't think that people should sue for damages no matter how negligent a person caused horrible injuries? Jury nullification for all!

What if I don't think people should have guns so when the government seizes guns improperly and you sue to get them back and for civil rights violations I say- heck no? You shouldn't have guns. Jury nullification!

What if someone thinks blacks don't deserve the protection of law so I'll never vote to convict a white man of a black man's murder? Jury nullification!

What if I don't think the law is harsh enough so even though the State didn't prove the elements of murder, just manslaughter, I convict of murder. Hey, I'm on the jury, I can do what I want!

 

[88GT]

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.

i have said this time and again, but apparently it needs to be said yet one more time: the existence of a law is not sufficient justification for that law. So your argument that this court or that court says it means this or that is largely irrelevant. I'm not looking for the prevailing opinion when I seek to cement my view on this issue. See below.

Clear law? Any law that fits the status quo of the day. Someone going to jail over a law that violates nothing more than personal morals of some people should be an injustice.

And this is why. Laws based on prevailing opinion are mutable and subject to whoever wields the power. No, thanks. That's a horrible standard. But it's good to know you (address Hough here still) are fine with it.

 

[rambone]

I think it’s kind of important to look at what our Indiana Supreme Court actually says that means.

But was it really?

You've acknowledged that Jury Nullification exists and will always exist. Why was it so vital to know what the court thinks of it? They have no authority or effect over the matter. The cases you cited only display the court's contempt for the constitution and willingness to pass judgement over things outside its control. Such behavior demonstrates why people should not place so much significance on court decisions.

.... a mob of 12 deciding they don't like laws the duly elected legislature enacted...

You flaunt Congress's virtue in making arbitrary rules over society, but scoff when their brilliant ideas face the scrutiny of a normal person in a real-life situation. The real mob is Congress.

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

Isn't that what you are advocating, though? Don't think... just convict.

Voting to enforce the letter of the law takes less critical thinking than considering whether justice is being served.

A juror's opinion holds as much weight as a Congressman's. Its is lazy and irresponsible to pass off all the "thinking" to another branch of government, neutering an essential check & balance in the system.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

you know as well as I do that as a practical matter it exists and always will. I just have a problem with ignoring the clear law because of personal belief.

I am very thankful that de facto jury nullification exists.

I have no problem with juries voting down a law because of personal belief, but I am the one that wants a House of Repeal grafted onto the Indiana General Assembly.

 

[hornadylnl]

I more trust my liberties to a jury of 12 than any agent of the state.

 

[hornadylnl]

As is typical. If you aren't 100% on board with the state, you're a cop hater.

Thread: Jury Nullification: Essential rights every American should understand
You cast a not guilty vote because you hate the police, that's all.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I more trust my liberties to a jury of 12 than any agent of the state.

Even if you were a wealthy business owner, with very deep pockets, and some "small-guy"/"working man" type plaintiff were suing you because they used your product and got hurt because you didn't put some warning placard on it?

 

[hornadylnl]

Even if you were a wealthy business owner, with very deep pockets, and some "small-guy"/"working man" type plaintiff were suing you because they used your product and got hurt because you didn't put some warning placard on it?

Are talking criminal or civil trial?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Are talking criminal or civil trial?

Does it make a difference? In a civil trial, a jury can find financial fault where none should exist and completely ignore the evidence of the plaintiff actions and their cause of the accident. While not technically nullification, I'd argue it's certainly in the same vein.

 

[hornadylnl]

Does it make a difference? In a civil trial, a jury can find financial fault where none should exist and completely ignore the evidence of the plaintiff actions and their cause of the accident. While not technically nullification, I'd argue it's certainly in the same vein.

In a civil trial, the jury can't put me in chains. In a civil trial, isn't it up to the judge to determine if the plaintiff has standing to sue me and allow it to go to trial?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

In a civil trial, the jury can't put me in chains. In a civil trial, isn't it up to the judge to determine if the plaintiff has standing to sue me and allow it to go to trial?

In a civil trial, they can take your property. You spend some portion of your life accumalating that property therefore when they take part of it away, they are, in effect, taking some equivalent proportion of your freedom away from you. Granted, a civil trial cannot take your life or put you behind bars but taking your money/property away from you should not be dismissed as something trivial.

Ignoring the evidence and passing a verdict as you see fit can be a dangerous thing to your freedom as well.

 

[Trigger Time]

I more trust my liberties to a jury of 12 than any agent of the state.

Hell yes! Govt is not meant to be trusted. The men who created this republic told us that.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I am very thankful that de facto jury nullification exists.

I have no problem with juries voting down a law because of personal belief, but I am the one that wants a House of Repeal grafted onto the Indiana General Assembly.

Kirk, I don''t suppose you're silly enough to run for Governor, are you?

You'd have quite the popular platform here in the Hoosier State: instituting a House of Repeal, Above-the-Line tax deductions for firearms training, a thorough understanding of the legal system.

 

[hornadylnl]

In a civil trial, they can take your property. You spend some portion of your life accumalating that property therefore when they take part of it away, they are, in effect, taking some equivalent proportion of your freedom away from you. Granted, a civil trial cannot take your life or put you behind bars but taking your money/property away from you should not be dismissed as something trivial.

Ignoring the evidence and passing a verdict as you see fit can be a dangerous thing to your freedom as well.

It is my understanding that for a civil trial to move forward, a judge must determine the case has merit to be heard. If I'm facing a frivelous civil suit, the judge must first fail me before a jury has a chance to decide against me. So how is it only the jury's fault if I lose?

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Jury nullification: the enshrining of the right to adjudge another according to one's conscience. Is it widely practiced? No. Is it widely known? No. Would chaos ensue if it were widely known? I don't think so. After all, it doesn't do anything of itself - in fact, is nothing of itself, save the expression of one's right to adjudge according to conscience. It expresses the right and duty of Man to act as the final bulwark against tyranny: even after the Legislature passes unjust laws, even after the Executive executes those laws, and even after the Judiciary has upheld those same unjust laws as somehow legitimate, there still exists a final bulwark against the imposition of the will of the State against the individual, in the hope that this might be the final salve of the Republic - in the event of near-total corruption, each man may spare his neighbor the judgment of a harsh, unjust, tyrannical State.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It is my understanding that for a civil trial to move forward, a judge must determine the case has merit to be heard. If I'm facing a frivelous civil suit, the judge must first fail me before a jury has a chance to decide against me. So how is it only the jury's fault if I lose?

As in jury notification of a criminal trial, all they have to do is ignore the evidence of a customer of yours using a product in a manner it may have not been intended or using it in an unsafe condition and lay the blame on you because you have deep pockets and the little guy "deserves" it. I thought I said as much in an earlier post. I don't know how to make it clearer.