Jury nullification and the 2nd Ammendment

[edporch]

Like it or not, juries have had the right to judge the facts of the case as well as the rightness or wrongness of the law itself since the beginning of our republic.
It's another check and balance against tyranny.

 

[Woobie]

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.

This is a straw man. The prosecutor and the defense counsel are going to agree to seat a wife beating crackhead nambla member? Ya, ok. And because Radley Balko has made this statement, he will never be on a jury. Any lawyer worth his salt will get him removed in a heartbeat for having such statements on record, as well as anyone else who chooses to say such things. If our only recourse for justice in the event of being convicted of breaking an unjust law is SCOTUS, then may God help us all. These are the people that upheld Obamacare because "who are we to overturn a law the elected representatives of the people have enacted?"

 

[worddoer]

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

QFT^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nailed It.

 

[vitamink]

This is a straw man. The prosecutor and the defense counsel are going to agree to seat a wife beating crackhead nambla member? Ya, ok. And because Radley Balko has made this statement, he will never be on a jury. Any lawyer worth his salt will get him removed in a heartbeat for having such statements on record, as well as anyone else who chooses to say such things. If our only recourse for justice in the event of being convicted of breaking an unjust law is SCOTUS, then may God help us all. These are the people that upheld Obamacare because "who are we to overturn a law the elected representatives of the people have enacted?"

Straw man? this happens all day long. I can give first hand empirical evidence if you'd like.

They can only disqualify so many each. Why would the defense want to kick someone off any case where a potential juror has no issue with what their client is charged with? Further, just because you do XYZ, doesn't mean you advertise it. Even if you do, none of those crimes are felony level so you can still sit on a jury. Now my information is gathered from going to court anytime between Monday through Friday for 13 years and I can tell you with absolute certainty that there are folks convicted of dui who have never registered to vote (a drivers license subpoena) that were not thrown out by EITHER attorney. In fact I know a prosecutor that often prefers to have previously convicted drunk drivers that sit on dui cases. I can expand if you'd like.

As as far as Radley Balko is concerned, no one who matters knows him well enough to say, "hey that's that guy who wants to lie to promote his agenda". How detailed was voir dire the last time you were a juror? I can give you an example of some questions that were asked verbatim from prosecution and defense next Monday if you'd like. It wouldn't matter with Balko as he promotes getting on a jury to get the outcome he wants.

I can get behind nullification if we still had laws like mentioned before regarding killing other races, but that isn't the case. I find it appalling that it takes 1 citizen to say someone is doing something wrong, one cop to find probable cause that the person is doing something wrong, one detective to concur and go to a screening prosecutor that also agrees, one prosecutor to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and 11 people to agree whole heartedly just to end on a hung jury as one person believes all cops are liars and excersizes his right to nullify. (Murder story, I can expand if you'd like plus 100 other examples).

ill respond to others when I can get to a computer.

 

[devil07]

IANAL, but I know one or two well.

My understanding of jury nullification is that it would occurred through a "not guilty" despite evidence to the contrary and the jury believing the defendant did the deed. The Hung Jury situation would not qualify, since the prosecution is able to refile charges and try again. The only time that the prosecution can't refile is a "not guilty" verdict, which requires a unanimous decision by the jury.

So, while the situations that vitamink is describing do exist, happen, and are abhorrent, they wouldn't lead to nullification, and leave the door open for a refiling of charges. Unless that one stubborn person manages to get the other 11 to capitulate just to go home.

If my understanding of jury nullification is correct, I'm am less concerned about it than Judicial Nullification (by a judge). That crap is ridiculous, at least in the instances I've observed it happening.

 

[vitamink]

All true.

The issue I'm concerned with is the promotion of the idea by many special interest groups to promote an agenda. It seems to be the new hot button for 2014-15. The end result is frequently a hung jury and not nullification, as rarely do you have that many idiots that agree on everything in the same room. I didn't mean to confuse anyone and I edited the confusing language in the previous to better explain.

 

[AA&E]

They can only disqualify so many each.

And there are only so many degenerate pieces of **** on the planet. Maybe you know far more then most of us do. But that isn't a representation of the populace as a whole, nor on the averages of a selected jury pool.

 

[AA&E]

All true.

The issue I'm concerned with is the promotion of the idea by many special interest groups to promote an agenda. It seems to be the new hot button for 2014-15. The end result is frequently a hung jury and not nullification, as rarely do you have that many idiots that agree on everything in the same room. I didn't mean to confuse anyone and I edited the confusing language in the previous to better explain.

This isn't a new hot button issue... this has been spoke of for decades.

Is a hung jury not a better result than a guilty conviction of an unjust law? I doubt you'd think so if you were the one being convicted.

 

[vitamink]

Only recently have people been handing out leaflets, putting up billboards, flooding social media, and subsequently making mainstream media. Frequently lawyers hang around after a verdict to speak to the jury. Many leave, but the nullify folks have no problem telling prosecution why they did what they did (story below). You don't have to be a degenerate piece of ****. You just have to have an agenda, a predisposition, a belief, or whatever. How many times on here have you seen people pass judgement based on zero presented evidence and only the "court of public opinion"? It doesn't make them degenerates just biased.

I agree, if I were the one being convicted for an unjust law, or any law for that matter, I wouldn't care if the jury found me innocent, if one person didn't like the prosecutors shoes and hung the jury, or if my accuser changed her mind. But what of the victims? My original contention is that I don't see how anyone gets convicted of anything. Here is a real life example of a nullifier at work. 2 drug dealers are having a text message argument. By the end drug dealer A informs B that he is on his way to kill him. Drug dealer B is walking up the steps to his house with 2 women when he is struck by a bullet in the back. The women call 911 as a blue truck speeds away. Trial day comes and the evidence is the text messages, the eyewitness account, the state's witness who says he driver of the truck with dealer A in the passenger seat.

When its all done a good citizen of the community who works as an engineer and doesn't trust the government felt he needed to send a message. He argued with the other jurors of the plausibility of an officers inconsequential statement. The statement the officer made was that after he got the call of a person shot he was headed down xxx street where he saw the victim in the grass between the two women witnesses. The juror felt that unless the state could provide the lumen rating of the street lamp then he felt the cop wouldn't be able to see that far calling the whole case into question.

 

[vitamink]

Read between the lines.

A how to guide for nullification:

HOW do I nullify? ? Power to the Jury: Jury nullification protects good people from bad laws

 

[Woobie]

Vitamink, I see your points, and I think they are very valid. It is a miscarriage of justice when a jury fails to convict a guilty person based upon some misconception. However, I remain convinced that in a few, very limited cases, where the legal system is all too ready to put someone away for violating an unjust law, a jury ought to look at the law, as well as the facts. And in some cases, a determination should be made that the law is violating the person, not the other way around. In a perfect world, the jury could go ahead and convict, and an appellate court would overturn the law, thus establishing case law. But I don't have 100% confidence in that method either.

 

[Woobie]

Read between the lines.

A how to guide for nullification:

HOW do I nullify? ? Power to the Jury: Jury nullification protects good people from bad laws

That site makes you wonder what their true motives are. Sound like a bunch of dope heads trying to nullify drug laws. I can see a lot of people doing the opposite, though, lol. "Pot? I love pot! I smoke it all the time! I think there should be a law requiring us to use pot." "OK Mr. Smith, that will be all. Next!" Now Mr. Smith gets to go back to work and pay his bills, lol.

 

[Beowulf]

I believe William Blackstone said, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

That has been a corner stone of how our justice system is supposed to work, with the accused having multiple tries at proving their innocence and then appealing their convictions all the way up, but the prosecution only gets the one shot. Doing it any other way leads to a police state, where the government can abuse the populace with impunity

Jury nullification is another measure to limit the over reach of the government, where a person who broke an unjust law can still maintain their freedom. Given where our justice system has gone, with massively unconstitutional laws, corrupt prosecutors, and an over-zealous and ever more militarized police force, we, the people, need all the help we can get keeping that in check.

Is there a risk that someone could torpedo the conviction of a child molester or a murderer for a nefarious purpose? Yes. Is that really likely? No. You really only see Jury Nullification come up in cases of things like drug possession, some fire arm laws, and some free speech/trespassing type cases, basically areas that there is a lot of contention over the constitutionality of the law itself. Bringing up the idea of a child molester walking free because of some NAMBLA activist is a straw man and is just plain silly.

 

[Paul30]

I'm all for it, it has been a part of the process for a very long time. Seems when we took a boat ride form the mother land we decided to try to put in safeguards to protect "we the people" from a tyrannical government should one try to develop. Sure someone can abuse it, but that is going to happen anyway with people simply saying they don't believe the evidence. Where it really helps is when a person like George Zimmerman is tried for trying to stay alive while someone is beating their head into the sidewalk and the court appointed defense lawyer is green, and the prosecutor is very experienced. The court has nothing to do with right or wrong, many innocent men are sitting in prison now, and many guilty ones are free. Indiana and Georgia are one of the few states that actually have it in the books that a jury can ask for instructions on how to perform jurry nullification if I am remembering right. Although not exactly morally right, a good example of the power given the jury vs the judge was demonstrated when a well liked citizen stole a cow from a well to do person most in the area did not like. The evidence proved without a doubt that the likeable fellow stole the other mans cow. The jury read their verdict "we find that if he returns the cow we will find him not guilty". The judge got a bit angry and told the jury that they had better march right back into the room and come back out with another verdict. The jury returned and the judge asked if they have changed their verdict. The foreman answered "We have your honor, We the jury find him not guilty, and he can keep the cow".

I like it because if some bad law is passed where posessing a bullet with a green tip is a felony, and some guy purchased some 40 years ago and still had them stored away and forgotten only to have them found on a search of the home based on other reasons then a juror can find him not guilty since it is a stupid law. Several similar situations could be beneficial to a gun owner. Some states passed ridiculous laws about magazine capacity, first no more than 10, then no more than 7, then you can have a 10 rounder but if you put more than 7 in it it's a felony. Indiana is not that bad, but things can change in the future and I like the idea of having a fail safe like Jury Nullification in our constitution as a citizen over ride option.

http://fija.org/docs/CI_Indiana_vs_Thompson.txt

 

[actaeon277]

Only recently have people been handing out leaflets, putting up billboards, flooding social media, and subsequently making mainstream media. Frequently lawyers hang around after a verdict to speak to the jury. Many leave, but the nullify folks have no problem telling prosecution why they did what they did (story below). You don't have to be a degenerate piece of ****. You just have to have an agenda, a predisposition, a belief, or whatever. How many times on here have you seen people pass judgement based on zero presented evidence and only the "court of public opinion"? It doesn't make them degenerates just biased.

I agree, if I were the one being convicted for an unjust law, or any law for that matter, I wouldn't care if the jury found me innocent, if one person didn't like the prosecutors shoes and hung the jury, or if my accuser changed her mind. But what of the victims? My original contention is that I don't see how anyone gets convicted of anything. Here is a real life example of a nullifier at work. 2 drug dealers are having a text message argument. By the end drug dealer A informs B that he is on his way to kill him. Drug dealer B is walking up the steps to his house with 2 women when he is struck by a bullet in the back. The women call 911 as a blue truck speeds away. Trial day comes and the evidence is the text messages, the eyewitness account, the state's witness who says he driver of the truck with dealer A in the passenger seat.

When its all done a good citizen of the community who works as an engineer and doesn't trust the government felt he needed to send a message. He argued with the other jurors of the plausibility of an officers inconsequential statement. The statement the officer made was that after he got the call of a person shot he was headed down xxx street where he saw the victim in the grass between the two women witnesses. The juror felt that unless the state could provide the lumen rating of the street lamp then he felt the cop wouldn't be able to see that far calling the whole case into question.

Maybe they have to tell people nowadays, because people aren't being taught civic responsibility anymore. Follow the herd and trust everything we are told.