Absolutely despicable behaviour by cops

[Andrew D]

Jury nullification is essential to the fair operation of the criminal justice system. In the civil justice system, not so much.

[Crackpot]

Could someone give a quick rundown on what Jury nullification is and how it is applied? THe Wiki page has flags all over it and the language is obviously slanted.

Thanks in advance.

[liberty]

There are two things in the jury room I will not do. I will not go against my conscience and I will not be a hypocrite. I will not be a party to a wrongful conviction and I will not convict someone for something I would have done myself. The ruling class can make the laws but in the end it is up to the people to enforces them.

Don’t worry Guin there is a good chance that I will be eliminated for telling the truth or I will get a drug or traffic case. But still the state will have to prove their case with hard evidence; prejudice and emotion count for nothing.

[Andrew D]

The essence of jury nullification is the jurors' declining to follow the law as given them by the judge.

The nominal role of the jury is to determine the facts. Did the accused offer to exchange sexual favors for money, or did she not?

Jury nullification happens when the jurors say, or a juror says, "I am not going to send her to jail for offering to exchange sexual favors for money. The law says that if she did, she is going to jail. I am not going to do it. And if the law does not like that, then the law can go [bleep] itself."

[Crackpot]

Thanks that's what I thought Wiki was getting at but I wanted to be sure.

[Guinevere]

Liberty, do you know you're being selected for a jury pool which only sits on criminal cases? In MA, the criminal cases get the pool first, but if you're not selected, then you are available for the civil cases. And of course if there are no criminal cases ready for trial, then the pool goes directly to the civil trials.

As for being eliminated because you "tell the truth" that probably depends on what you mean -- if you tell a judge (and in MA, the judges do the voir dire, not the lawyers) you won't follow his or her instructions on certain kinds of cases, yes, I think you'd get kicked. Although I've not seen the judge ask that kind of question directly.

Also, what makes you think the lawyers want jurors who make decisions based on prejudice and emotion, and not evidence? Good lord, please stop relying on TV for your view of the legal system. I want intelligent, aware jurors who have precisely the ability to sort through the evidence presented and who can determine what is established by fact, and what is opinion and subjective feelings.

[Sue U]

Don’t worry Guin there is a good chance that I will be eliminated for telling the truth

The juror's role is to listen to the witnesses and determine what the facts are (beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, more likely than not in civil). In Andrew's example, the jury's function would be to determine whether the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did in fact offer sexual favors in exchange for money. If she did, the judge will pronounce a sentence in accordance with what the law requires with respect to solicitation. If the prosecution has proved its facts, and those facts amount to a violation of law, "telling the truth" requires you to say so, regardless of what you think the law ought to be. If you said otherwise, you'd be lying about what facts were proved by the state.

[Andrew D]

Don’t worry Guin there is a good chance that I will be eliminated for telling the truth

The juror's role is to listen to the witnesses and determine what the facts are (beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, more likely than not in civil). In Andrew's example, the jury's function would be to determine whether the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did in fact offer sexual favors in exchange for money. If she did, the judge will pronounce a sentence in accordance with what the law requires with respect to solicitation. If the prosecution has proved its facts, and those facts amount to a violation of law, "telling the truth" requires you to say so, regardless of what you think the law ought to be. If you said otherwise, you'd be lying about what facts were proved by the state.

No.

"The" truth is the truth that matters.

"The" truth is that no one should be incarcerated for having offered to exchange sexual favors for money.

If the defendant in a particular case did offer to exchange sexual favors for money, that is "a" truth. So is the fact that she was wearing a red skirt rather than a blue one. So is the fact that her would-be customer was driving a Buick rather than a Toyota.

But "the" truth is the one that the jury is telling: No one should be incarcerated for having offered to exchange sexual favors for money.

The lying that is going on is the system's refusal to present to the jury the real question at issue.

That's the lie.

Everyone knows that the real question is "should she or should she not go to jail for having offered to exchange sexual favors for money?" But the system will not give the jurors the opportunity to address that question.

I emphasize again that I am talking about jury nullification in the criminal context. In the civil context, the issues presented are not the same.

[Sue U]

I understand that, Andrew, and I agree that the jury is fundamental to democracy and a bulwark against tyranny. But the proper sphere for legislation is the legislature, not the jury room. You may feel that it is immoral to classify prostitution and drug dealing/use as crimes, and that may be the truth. But it is unfair to society at large to simply ignore the rules that we have collectively agreed on through democratic processes.

[Andrew D]

Society at large is not going to spend the next six months or six years or whatever in a cell.

Juries are not expressions of democracy. Courts are not expressions of democracy.

They are both exactly the opposite. Courts are the places where one person can stand up and say "the majority can kiss my ass". Jurors are the people who can stand up and say "the majority can kiss her ass". And they should.

[Scooter]

Sure, just like Southern whites would say, "the n----r lovers can kiss my ass" when they used jury nullification to acquit white men accused of killing black men, and to convict black men accused of raping white women, when the facts and the law said otherwise.

There has been and continues to be an ugly side to jury nullification that should not be ignored when touting its virtues as a bulwark against tyranny.

[Andrew D]

I agree. There is an ugly side to jury nullification. And it has been used in vicious, hateful, disgusting ways.

It has also been used to accomplish justice.

I am not suggesting that we should ignore the ugly side of jury nullification. I am suggesting that we should not ignore the good side of jury nullification.

The system we have is going to screw up. Every previous system we have had has screwed up. Every system we might have in the foreseeable future is going to screw up.

The system is us. We created it, we operate it, and we carry out its consequences.

And we screw up. Individually, collectively, we screw up.

I am just saying that we should try to do the best that we can. And jury nullification is part of that.

[Sue U]

Advocating for jury nullification -- whether used for good or ill -- is tantamount to advocating for judicial anarchy or mob rule. We pride ourselves on being a nation of laws, not of men. The law may sometimes be unjust, and may often lag behind societal norms, but it is the law. There are appropriate methods available to change the law, but except in the most extreme and egregious case, jury nullification is not one of them.

[Andrew D]

There are appropriate methods available to change the law, but except in the most extreme and egregious case, jury nullification is not one of them.

Ah.

So who decides what case is "extreme and egregious" enough to justify jury nullification?

[Sue U]

Potter Stewart?

ETA:

Look, I'm about as Bolshie as they come, but even I have a serious problem with the kind of revolutionary justice embodied by jury nullification. I don't think I could ever condone it, although in the most extreme and egregious case I might turn a blind eye (perhaps in a capital case).

[liberty]

Liberty, do you know you're being selected for a jury pool which only sits on criminal cases? In MA, the criminal cases get the pool first, but if you're not selected, then you are available for the civil cases. And of course if there are no criminal cases ready for trial, then the pool goes directly to the civil trials.

As for being eliminated because you "tell the truth" that probably depends on what you mean -- if you tell a judge (and in MA, the judges do the voir dire, not the lawyers) you won't follow his or her instructions on certain kinds of cases, yes, I think you'd get kicked. Although I've not seen the judge ask that kind of question directly.

Also, what makes you think the lawyers want jurors who make decisions based on prejudice and emotion, and not evidence? Good lord, please stop relying on TV for your view of the legal system. I want intelligent, aware jurors who have precisely the ability to sort through the evidence presented and who can determine what is established by fact, and what is opinion and subjective feelings.

Well Guin, I Am off the hook. Because of your question I took another look at the paper work; it is a civil jury. So since we are not talking about freedom and the rights of a citizen, just greed I am free to vote for the guy that looks the most like me.

“She is a rich bitch she has got to be guilty” quote of pass jury in this area.

[BoSoxGal]

Jury nullification is a whole lot more mundane than serving as a 'bulwark against tyranny'; we see it all the time in our DUI cases, even where the evidence of impairment is overwhelming, as is the evidence of BAC far exceeding the legal standard.

The juries get instructed on that evidence and despite their statements in support of DUI laws in voir dire, they nullify. No grand intentions; they just can't seem to hold community members accountable who they will have to see at the grocery, church, etc. DUI is just too acceptable in Montana culture still, and juries ignore the law.

[Andrew D]

Jury nullification is a whole lot more mundane than serving as a 'bulwark against tyranny'; we see it all the time in our DUI cases, even where the evidence of impairment is overwhelming, as is the evidence of BAC far exceeding the legal standard.

Prove it.

You say that jurors are violating their oaths.

Prove it.

Using the same standard you are demanding of me, prove it.

[BoSoxGal]

I made it very clear I was sharing my anecdotal experience. A couple months back I watched a DUI case with clear evidence establishing a driver in actual control of a motor vehicle on ways of the State open to the public with a .165 BAC, more than twice the legal limit as established by law. The jury was properly instructed and acquitted, to the surprise of even the defense counsel. The Judge questioned some of the jurors after they were released; they said the defendant seemed like 'a nice guy', so they couldn't convict. If you are too blind to see what that is, nothing anyone says will get through to you.

And I couldn't care less.

[Lord Jim]

Advocating for jury nullification -- whether used for good or ill -- is tantamount to advocating for judicial anarchy or mob rule.

It worked for Johnny Cochrane...

That is exactly what he did in his closing argument in the Simpson case....