Have you ever been on a Jury for a major crime, and worked to find the defendant not guilty due to Jury Nullification of the law he was charged with violating? I was put in just such a position last week, and I chose to convict anyway. This was due to the fact that the part of the law I found unConstitutional was more of a technicality about the law, even though the gist of the crime itself was rational in my mind. But I felt very guilty about it, nonetheless. ......in the end, the guy was a very bad person, had committed a very bad crime, and will be punished for his crime. That's how I sleep at night.
I have never been on a jury. I was called once in college and had already departed the area since I had graduated. I then was called and when I told the jury commissioner I was a DOJ attorney, she said "never mind". I doubt I would ever get past a defense attorney on voir dire having had 24 years as a DOJ attorney and several years before that as a municipal prosecutor. When you take an oath as a juror you basically agree to follow the law as the Judge gives it to you. Technically, anyone who engages in "Jury nullification" violates their oath as a juror and if you admit you support jury nullification, the judge will most likely strike you for cause
i read that if I did decide to vote "not guilty" due to jury nullification, its my right especially since I wasn't asked out it, the defend attorney didn't argue for it, and its our right as citizens.
I can only tell you about the jury oath federal judges in the SDOhio administer. I have heard that oath over 100 times and based on my understanding, jurors swear to follow the law as given to them by the judges
And if you're somehow already on the jury he will possibly jail you for contempt, yes? Thing is, nobody tells, and there's really no way to tell what's in someone's mind. This is why I don't support juries. I like the French system, where they have 3 judges. Do you really want your fate decided by 12 people not smart enough to figure out some way to get off jury duty? (or worse, anxious to get on one?)
you make a most interesting point. I did lots of civil work. And I agree with you. I don't believe in juries in civil cases.
I read that there have been Supreme Court cases stating that a judge can prevent an attorney from arguing for "not guilty" based on jury nullification, but that a jury can of course find someone "not guilty" due to jury nullification, or have a hung jury, as jury deliberation is secret. now, could a juror complain to a judge that another juror is arguing for the law the defendent is charged with violating being nullified? I don't know. isn't it our constitutional right to find someone "not guilty" through nullification? perhaps the best thing to do is just say "i cannot vote Guilty" and leave it at that.
deep down I agree with you-jurors should be able to acquit someone who violated an unjust law. and some laws are unjust in the USA. The foreman of the WACO davidian case said if he had known that the judge was going to give the surviving davidians so much time, they would have found all of them not guilty on the firearms charges. anyway off to bed, later-this is an interesting topic
I actually felt very sick, the day of and the day after, that I voted guilty, knowing that I felt the specific law was a bit nutty and violated the Inter-State Commerce Claus. But, for some crazy reason, they decided to charge this guy in Federal court and not state court for the horrible crime he committed. I can't change that. And I was 100% convinced he was involved with the crime. so, I think I did the right thing. but still, I wish the charges were 100% appropriate. ...and on a side note, I was soo upset about this that I could not discuss it here. Its been 8 days since we decided, and only now am I able to discuss this. But I won't get into any specifics. Just know that a bad man is facing justice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States#Court_rulings In 1997, in U.S. v. Thomas,[30] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b). The Second Circuit also stated, however, that the court must not remove a juror for an alleged refusal to follow the law as instructed unless the record leaves no doubt that the juror was in fact engaged in deliberate misconduct—that he was not simply unpersuaded by the Government's case against the defendants.
This is one of those things that I find silly in our judicial system. It isn't okay for our judges to make a biased decision, but we only overturn such a decision if the record is so clear that the judge basically said "I'm convicting you because you're black". And here, we say, "oh no, jury nullification is against the rules and you can't do that," but the only way that anyone knows if you're doing that is if you outright say that you are doing so. They can't even remove you for suspicion. Our rules against these two are so superficial and phony that we might as well allow them. Also to add, on a siddnote, I've never been on jury duty. I think I vaguely remember getting a summons when I was deployed, though I honestly can't remember if I got it or if I was talking to a ship mate who got one. So many of those came to us when we were on deployment that it became a joke. "Oh no, I can't serve jury duty. I've got a 20 hour watch tomorrow, with 4 hours overtime." But yeah, I've never been on one. I'm that weirdo that would actually like to be on one. But I probably never will. I plan on starting law school in 2016. Pretty sure they don't like calling up lawyers on jury duty.
Years ago I saw a special On PBS and it was about what goes on in a Jury room during deliberations,This particular case was about a parolee who allegedly had been caught having a gun. The case really wasn't important. The program was about the responsibilities of the jury, It turns out according to this special that once a juror is in the room deliberating the case ,you are your own person , you can find someone guilty or innocent for any reason you wish with no explanation and there's nothing anyone can do about it. You don't have to follow any law or Judge's instructions. When the jury was out of the room the defense attorney even requested that the Judge inform the jury of this right ,but he refused. They did go on to state that it was a juror's right to find the person guilty or innocent for any reason without explanation if they wished without any consequences ! So, if you feel a person might have committed the crime ,but in your mind it was justified ,you could find them innocent !
If I was ever on a jury, no matter the severity or certainty of the crime, I'd acquit. I'd also lie and present myself as the best candidate for the final jury, so I get picked. The more I can do to let criminals off the hook, the better.
