Forums | MacLife

How about the drug dealer selling to kids?

iSeamas wrote:

Nefarious wrote:

resedit wrote:

As a juror, it is not your job to decide if the law is worthy, but (assuming criminal case)

As a matter of fact, it is.   Any lawyer or judge who says otherwise is trying to railroad you and everybody else.

The jury's only job is to decide whether the prosecution make its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Their job is not whether they disagree with the law.
.

Blindly following the law ?  The judges at the Nuremberg Trials had a different opinion.

I have to say I agree with Res on this one. If you agree with the law or not is not your purpose. You are there to determine if the law as it is currently written was broken or not based solely on the evidence provided. Which is why I was excused, I told the judge & lawyers I did not agree with the law in question for this case and could not give an impartial decision.

I've been called for jury duty over a dozen times. Over all I have been empanelled 7 times but in two of those cases the accused must have pled guilty on a lesser charge before the jury actually got to hear the case, and one time I was excused from the panel because I was distantly related to one of the police officers in the case--let's see: he is the husband of the cousin of my sister-in-law. In the four cases I have heard the jury found the defendant guilty in the three criminal cases (attempted murder, burglary and vandalism), and the defendant not liable in a civil case (a workman's compensation case).

One time I was called but did not get empanelled was shortly after the Rodney King riots in LA of 1992. Almost all of us in the jury pool yo-yo-ed from the jury pool waiting room at the top of the courthouse apparently because the cases would get settled by the time we got assembled outside of the court rooms.

Except for the times I got empanelled, I spent a lot of time reading and trying to ignore the TV which was tuned to a soap opera or to one of the Jerry Springer clones.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Except for the times I got empanelled, I spent a lot of time reading and trying to ignore the TV which was tuned to a soap opera or to one of the Jerry Springer clones.

They had the TV tuned to CNN last time I was there.
Except when they were showing the cheesy campy video where they kept changing the angle of the camera shot for no purpose other than to change the angle of the camera shot.

iSeamas wrote:

Nefarious wrote:

resedit wrote:

As a juror, it is not your job to decide if the law is worthy, but (assuming criminal case)

As a matter of fact, it is.   Any lawyer or judge who says otherwise is trying to railroad you and everybody else.

Wrong.
The jury's only job is to decide whether the prosecution make its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Their job is not whether they disagree with the law.

Res is correct.

Res is partially incorrect. Jury nullification still exists. Some states explicitly prohibit it though. Nullification played a large part in ending prohibition.

article wrote:

What is jury nullification? Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged.  The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate that are charged with deciding.

article wrote:

When has jury nullification been practiced? The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of  John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby.  Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels, the only issue the court said the jury was open to decide as the truth or falsity of the statements was ruled to be irrelevant, the jury returned with a verdict of "Not Guilty." More recent examples of nullification might include acquittals of "mercy killers," including Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and minor drug offenders.

Law website

article wrote:

Do juries have the right to nullify? Juries clearly have the power to nullify; whether they also have the right to nullify is another question.  Once a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty," that verdict cannot be questioned by any court and the "double jeopardy" clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge.

Early in our history, judges often informed jurors of their nullification right.  For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]."  In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed.

Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late 1800s.  In 1895, in United States v Sparf, the U. S. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney's request to let the jury know of their nullification power.

Courts recently have been reluctant to encourage jury nullification, and in fact have taken several steps to prevent it.  In most jurisdictions, judges instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them, whether they agree with the law or not.  Only in a handful of states are jurors told that they have the power to judge both the facts and the law of the case.  Most judges also will prohibit attorneys from using their closing arguments to directly appeal to jurors to nullify the law.

Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right, when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her intention to vote to nullify the law.

Since most of you won't read that long bs, I suggest going here. Fully informed jury association They cover your rights and responsibilities as a juror.

I've seen judges throw out a verdict on Law and Order.  Can this be done in the real world?  Could a jury nullify, return a verdict of not guilty, and have a judge declare the defendant guilty anyway?

Daniel wrote:

I've seen judges throw out a verdict on Law and Order.  Can this be done in the real world?  Could a jury nullify, return a verdict of not guilty, and have a judge declare the defendant guilty anyway?

In a civil case it can happen, though once you've reached a verdict in a criminal case  jeopardy would had already attached and the defendant has a constitutional right to a trial by jury.

A judge can overturn a guilty verdict, however.

I've been summoned twice. I did not go either time. All I did was send back the out of state form (which I was).

Hello, Temetka. Haven't seen you in a while.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

bratboy wrote:

I think it would be interesting but I don't think I'd be chosen.

Trust me: it is not very interesting and mostly dreary. It is, after all, "jury duty" and not "happy fun time at court."

bratboy's a lawyer.

sturner wrote:

lawyers hate to have lawyers on the jury. It's like a magician hating it when another magician is in the audience watching his performance.

They can see the smoke and mirrors.

I've also heard it described as a fox in the hen house.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

I know, but as the lawyer he will get to do about half of the talking (with the judge and his opposing lawyer doing the rest). In the jury you MUST listen while the court is in session--no nodding off, no talking to your neighbor, no reading, etc.

Oh I've sat through enough trials as an observer to know that they can become extremely boring at points.

I'm more talking about the process of deliberating with the other jury members.