Unpopular Opinion: Jury Duty can be used to take a stand for Free Speech.

Juror 8 may think that...but do the rest? There's a reason that we require a jury to at least get a majority vote or unanimous vote (depending on type of case) to send some one to jail/prison.

 

It's not exactly a verdict. A verdict can be the result of it though.

 

Juror 8 is utterly evil.

 

What does that have to do with jury nullification? The OP tied the two together. You can't simply argue each on its own merits and then conclude the two have anything to do with each other.

I've already posted a description of jury nullification. It's not something you can use. It's a verdict. If 12 people can't agree, the jury is hung. No nullification. If one juror shows bias, which isn't difficult to see, that juror will be removed. Let's get real here. Put yourself on that jury, if you and 10 other jurors think the defendant is innocent, how are you going to view this one juror who makes no sense? I think the 11 of you would ask that the crazy juror be removed. That's reality. The OP's hypothetical fiction is somewhat entertaining, but it doesn't even get the meaning of nullification correct.

Jury nullification is a verdict reached by 12 jurors, for the reasons I posted previously. Using bias is misconduct. Sadly, if all 12 jurors agree to this misconduct, they can and have issued such verdicts.

 

6th Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[1]

 

But you can use it. All that you have to do is convince the other jurors to your way of thinking.

And it's not misconduct. Misconduct is against the law. Jury nullification on the other hand is a Right held by the people. It was literally built in to the system. No one can be charged for using JN. And no one ever has. They can be dismissed, but they can't be charged.

 

That's okay. Juror 8 hit the Equalizer. You know what's coming next.

"30...29...10...ouch!"

 

It's a criminal case with evidence, not a political seminar. Get real, please.

And no, it's not something we use. It's a verdict. Do you also consider a hung jury something you can use? What about a guilty verdict? Not-guilty? Verdicts are decisions. They are not things you can use. Is it really that hard to understand?

Bias is most definitely misconduct, and a juror must be removed for such bias. Misconduct is against the law of the court, and is punishable by removal. I'm not gonna keep repeating realty. I've already posted the supporting links. Have fun with the Blockbuster. Maybe I'll check in later.

 

Juror 8 will try to persuade them based on the evidence. Not a word about Politics. Hung Jury.

 

NO! He/she takes a stand for Freedom.

 

Mr. D.E. Platformer fired Mr. P. In. Correct for Politically Incorrect opinion, which was in no way Hate Speech.

Mr. P. In. Correct retaliated by libeling Mr. D.E. Platformer on Twitter.

Juror 9 will do anything he can to acquit Mr. D.E. Platformer or at least hang the jury. In he/she wrong?

 

Impartial does not mean devoid of conscience or opinions. In fact past supreme court justices have ruled that if a juror cannot in good conscience vote to convict then they should not vote to convict.

 

To be more specific, the reason I stated that jury nullification is not illegal is because the United States Supreme Court said so. Prosecutors are not required to inform of this ability, but the prosecutor also can not tell them that jury nullification is prohibited. This is settled law.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/jury-nullification.html#:~:text=The Supreme Court has ruled,inform jurors of this power.&text=Hence, once a jury finds,against the same defendant again.

 

Agree 100%. See post above.

 

Thank you.

 

You really should stick to the topic.

 

The core purpose of a jury rather than a judge is the judge is the government as is the prosecutor. The jury is to serve as both best representing the views of fellow citizens and safeguard against capricious or unjust laws or application of laws. The right of a jury to "nullify" the law as it applies in a particularly instance (alleged crime) is at the core of why a defendant (but not prosecutor) can demand a trial by a jury of their peers.

 

Nobody is denying the legality of jury nullification.

Voting to convict an innocent man, as the OP proposes, is not jury nullification. Voting to convict an innocent man because you sincerely think he's guilty is not jury nullification. Voting to convict an innocent man because of prejudice is misconduct, and subject to removal. Still, not jury nullification.

The OP has confabulated some hypothetical situation using a false description of jury nullification.

 

Except the OP is suggesting using nullification not to nullify a law, but to convict an innocent man because of political bias. The "enemy" as he refers to them. Just like convicting innocent blacks was done in the Jim Crow South. Wonderful idea, no?

 

Let's stick to what impartial does mean. It means devoid of bias.

 

Never said it was a political seminar. But the DO call it Jury Deliberations for a reason. And that is so that the jury can discuss whether or not to reach a guilty or not guilty verdict. There us no such thing as a jury nullification verdict. Only a jury nullification outcome.

I think the problem you're having here is that you are considering JN to be a verdict. It's not. It is an outcome.

There isn't a single person that doesn't have bias. We are not machines.

 

Then I misunderstood. Technically a jury is strictly prohibited from ignoring the law to convict someone contrary to the law. However, it is understood that juries certainly do so - and prosecutors tend to try to guide juries in that direction, just like defense attorneys do so in the opposite direction.

It is well understood that juries discuss all sorts of things they were instructed not to such as experiences from their own lives, considering testimony the judge told them not to consider, and taking into account the defendant not testifying when the jury is not supposed to. This is why jury deliberations are never recorded. They easily could be for review, but probably half of all cases would have to be retried if they did. In serious cases, everything but jury deliberations is recorded other than potential off-record discussion privately with the judge in chambers.

 

When it comes to humans....there is no such thing.

Look I'd love to give you the evidence where past SCOTUS justices have confirmed that a juror must also consider thier conscience when deciding to vote guilty or not but I'm on my phone and it's a real pain to copy/paste links and quotes. I will post such however after I get off work.

 

What? No, jury nullification is a verdict. It's a specific type of verdict, but a verdict nonetheless.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The OP is talking about bias, not conscience. Really disjointed discussion here.

 

No argument from me. Not catching the relevance, so if there is any, please explain.

We're all human. Most of us can qualify for a jury. Someone who is prejudiced either for or against the defendant is not qualified.