Jury nullification and the 2nd Ammendment

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Read an interestng article in Ammoland News and it referenced a brochure put out by the Fully Informed Jury Association regarding jury nullification in 2A cases like those that may be coming in CT, NY, etc. where "assault rifles" were not registered.

A good read and resource.

 

[LP1]

So you favor letting 12 unelected people with no background in the law circumvent elected representatives and decide that a law is wrong?

No thanks. This type of thing should be resolved via the legislature and/or supreme court.

 

[actaeon277]

So you favor letting 12 unelected people with no background in the law circumvent elected representatives and decide that a law is wrong?

No thanks. This type of thing should be resolved via the legislature and/or supreme court.

Yes, I do.

If the law says Jewish people should be put to death, and you are on the jury to decide if someone is a Jew, you'd go ahead with a clean conscience and vote death?
Bad laws are made.
They should be found and eliminated (the bad laws).
But you don't just "go with the flow" because you're not "in charge", or "the expert".
The jury system is a part of the CHECKS AND BALANCES.
Really.
It is.
If it wasn't, THERE WOULDN'T EVEN BE A JURY.

 

[mrjarrell]

In Indiana it is clearly stated in the state Constitution that jurors have the Right and duty to judge not just the facts, but the law itself. That's jury nullification. As Acteon said, bad laws get made and this is how you gut them.

 

[jbombelli]

So you favor letting 12 unelected people with no background in the law circumvent elected representatives and decide that a law is wrong?

No thanks. This type of thing should be resolved via the legislature and/or supreme court.

In my opinion jury nullification is a major part of the reasoning behind the right to trial by a jury of your peers.

And it's specifically mentioned in the Indiana Constitution.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

So you favor letting 12 unelected people with no background in the law circumvent elected representatives and decide that a law is wrong?

No thanks. This type of thing should be resolved via the legislature and/or supreme court.

Precisely what I favor. Not just me. Others here, apparently and the dudes that wrote this:

Section 19. Criminal cases--Jury determination

Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

 

[ModernGunner]

Just because someone 'has a background in the law' doesn't mean they know diddly-squat about the law.

Keep in mind, every day half the lawyers in court, lose.

The Liar-In-Chief is a perfect example.

 

[vitamink]

How anyone gets convicted of anything is beyond me.

Im in the jury for a case where what I see as a consensual encounter between a 9yr old and a very loving and accommodating 60 yr old. I can't wait to stick it to the man and have my voice heard! Hopefully when it's all over he can sue the police for false arrest and the parents for defamation.

 

[actaeon277]

How anyone gets convicted of anything is beyond me.

Im in the jury for a case where what I see as a consensual encounter between a 9yr old and a very loving and accommodating 60 yr old. I can't wait to stick it to the man and have my voice heard! Hopefully when it's all over he can sue the police for false arrest and the parents for defamation.

You think a "jury of your peers" would be okay with that?

 

[vitamink]

It only takes one nambla, clan member, pot head, ex con, super/anti religious, black panther, feminist, Eco terrorist, pedophile, polygamist, schizophrenic, alcoholic, etc etc to hang or nullify. This is out of 12 people where half are chosen to sit on the jury as they exhibit these qualities.

Now if I'm the kind of person who feels that women are subservient to men, that women who dress like whores are asking for it, and that grew up with serious mommy issues, would you want me sitting on your daughters rape case? Keep in mind that a good attorney is going to hand pick me out of the crowd and 5 others like me. The case is inconsequential... My mind is made up regardless of what evidence is presented. It's been made up for years and I can't wait to change the planet one nullification at a time.

Hell even nullification's biggest proponent, Radley Balko, (not that this is surprising) said he'd lie to get on a jury just to nullify the case.

 

[vitamink]

You think a "jury of your peers" would be okay with that?

A jury of my peers is nothing more than a group of folks with drivers licenses. You can be a crack addicted wife beating burglar and have a drivers license or state ID. the defense for the last home invasion in the news revolved around poor kids going to an affluent area to get money as they felt life was unfair. Mom and daughter got raped, money was stolen, and mom got shot. If I am the above juror, I too feel that it is unfair that there are haves and have nots. These kids were nothing more than Robin Hood. I also feel that had mom just listened she wouldn't have been shot they did warn her after all. If both weren't hot and asking for it they wouldn't have been raped. Where's the crime? The true injustice is that they get to live like kings while I scrape by.

 

[LP1]

Yes, I do.

If the law says Jewish people should be put to death, and you are on the jury to decide if someone is a Jew, you'd go ahead with a clean conscience and vote death?
Bad laws are made.
They should be found and eliminated (the bad laws).
But you don't just "go with the flow" because you're not "in charge", or "the expert".
The jury system is a part of the CHECKS AND BALANCES.
Really.
It is.
If it wasn't, THERE WOULDN'T EVEN BE A JURY.

Hardly. There's a process in place for changing bad laws - it should be followed - that's not "going with the flow".

Jury nullification can lead to two identical cases having different outcomes - in what universe is that fair?

 

[Woobie]

Hardly. There's a process in place for changing bad laws - it should be followed - that's not "going with the flow".

Jury nullification can lead to two identical cases having different outcomes - in what universe is that fair?

Youre right. We should ensure everyone who breaks an unfair or unjust law is convicted, so as to ensure fairness and justice in the system. Let's go exhume Rosa Parks' body and hang it for sitting in the front of the bus. Hey, if we didn't convict her, it wouldn't be fair to every other non-white person who didn't follow massa's rules.

 

[EvilElmo]

Jury nullification can lead to two identical cases having different outcomes - in what universe is that fair?

A fairer one than both defendants getting screwed by the same bad law?

 

[jbombelli]

Jury Nullifucation IS part of the law. If you don't like it, get the Legislature to repeal it from the Constitution.

 

[vitamink]

Too much work...cant I just nullify it?

I should be be able to just pretend it doesn't exist as it's what "I" want who cares about law or what everyone else wants.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

It only takes one nambla, clan member, pot head, ex con, super/anti religious, black panther, feminist, Eco terrorist, pedophile, polygamist, schizophrenic, alcoholic, etc etc to hang or nullify. This is out of 12 people where half are chosen to sit on the jury as they exhibit these qualities.

Now if I'm the kind of person who feels that women are subservient to men, that women who dress like whores are asking for it, and that grew up with serious mommy issues, would you want me sitting on your daughters rape case? Keep in mind that a good attorney is going to hand pick me out of the crowd and 5 others like me. The case is inconsequential... My mind is made up regardless of what evidence is presented. It's been made up for years and I can't wait to change the planet one nullification at a time.

Hell even nullification's biggest proponent, Radley Balko, (not that this is surprising) said he'd lie to get on a jury just to nullify the case.

Those people wouldn't be seated on the jury unless the lawyer is a complete moron. If so, grounds for appeal?

 

[LarryC]

A jury of my peers is nothing more than a group of folks with drivers licenses. You can be a crack addicted wife beating burglar and have a drivers license or state ID. the defense for the last home invasion in the news revolved around poor kids going to an affluent area to get money as they felt life was unfair. Mom and daughter got raped, money was stolen, and mom got shot. If I am the above juror, I too feel that it is unfair that there are haves and have nots. These kids were nothing more than Robin Hood. I also feel that had mom just listened she wouldn't have been shot they did warn her after all. If both weren't hot and asking for it they wouldn't have been raped. Where's the crime? The true injustice is that they get to live like kings while I scrape by.

Well NOT QUITE, a Jury list is taken from "Registered Voters" in the district where the court has jurisdiction. A person with a felony cannot register to vote so will never be on a Jury selection list. Sure a Jury can be imperfect. They can be wrong, but in my opinion it is the fairest way that currently exists in the world to determine who is guilty or innocent. Yes, I do believe in Jury nullification, there are many cases where I have seen persons convicted that in my opinion the action they took was justified, but illegal as defined by a law.

It is kind of like my definition of Suicide, according to most religions it is an unforgivable sin. However, would you say a person that jumps over the side of an overloaded life boat full of women and children, into a mass of sharks, knowing there is no possibility of surviving to have committed suicide? In reality he took his own life and the definition most understand of suicide is that if you take an action, knowing you will die, you have committed suicide!

There are many laws on the books written by IDIOTS (IMHO many politicians fit this definition) with no regard to having any way to justify "breaking" the law. As an example, a person driving a seriously injured person to a hospital, speeding 90 in a 50 zone, that disregards a police officers siren and lights until he arrives at the hospital. He has broken several laws on the books. Speeding, reckless driving, eluding an officer (unsure of proper term ~ but a FELONY). Would you convict him? He has obviously broken the laws! I know you will argue that most officers would not charge him once the circumstances were known, but I am sure some rookies would.

 

[KLB]

Hardly. There's a process in place for changing bad laws - it should be followed - that's not "going with the flow".

Jury nullification can lead to two identical cases having different outcomes - in what universe is that fair?

Those two cases can end with different outcomes even without nullification. Different people perceive things differently. There is no guarantee that two juries would see things the same.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

What we have is a system of checks and balances! Our system is supposed to move like "molasses in wintertime", so that in theory we get it right the first time.

If the House and Senate pass a law, they better be certain the President will not VETO it, otherwise they have all just wasted their time. Their due diligence to us, the taxpayers, is to hopefully pass a law that they know ahead of time the President will sign. If they know he will not, then they should make certain they have the requisite number of votes to override the VETO. This is the informal part of lawmaking.

If the House and Senate pass a law AND the President signs it, they should ALL make certain that the Supreme Court will probably find it Constitutional. That is all of their due diligence to us. Otherwise, the legislative and executive branches have just wasted their time and the taxpayers money. Again, knowing what is probably going to happen ahead of time is the informal part of lawmaking.

If the House and Senate pass a law AND the President signs it AND it survives (as it should) scrutiny by SCOTUS, then all should make certain it is not repugnant to the American people, otherwise jury nullification can well remove teeth from any law the citizens find repugnant. This is all of their due diligence to us, the taxpayers and their bosses.

Jury nullification can also be a tremendous protection against LE or prosecutorial misconduct. A citizen breaks a technical law, but is able to provide solid reasoning for doing so. The citizen can prove ahead of time that they are not evil nor malicious nor intending to harm others. It was truly a fluke. Say, for example, a self defense claim in a state that had a duty to retreat. Well, there was nowhere to retreat and no time to do so. So in this case the citizen stops the bad guy. Technically, legally, the self defense guy was wrong! He did NOT retreat. However, the prosecutor should, before any action is taken, use good judgement to determine that he can really win this case. Presuming he is a doofus and presses charges a jury may well use jury nullification to basically say, "Yes, we know he broke the law, BUT he was being attacked and had nowhere to run. So in this case we are going to let him go." This does not mean the law is repealed or that it is wrong, but it does mean prosecutors need to look harder at the individual circumstances of a case before taking it to trial.

Sometimes a just and reasonable law can be applied in a manner inconsistent with the ideals of fairness and justice. It is in these circumstances that jury nullification should be used as a check and balance at trial. Of course there are also times when a law is in and of itself unjust and should also be struck down with jury nullification. Hopefully, the latter is far less common than the former.

Regards,

Doug