Jury nullification in the Indiana courts

[Rookie]

Can you be removed from the jury if you elect to use jury nullification?

 

[mrjarrell]

Judges can pretty much do anything they wish in their courtrooms. If you were to engage in nullification, (which is your right under both common law and the Indiana Constitution) your best bet would be to keep your mouth shut, as much as possible. Sure, you've got to convince the other jurors, but getting most people convinced of their right to nullify is a rough go. Especially, if the judge has already sided with the prosecution and given the tired, old speech about judging only the facts. So, can a judge toss you? Yep.

 

[Rookie]

From what I've read, Indiana courts are required to tell you of your right to nullify.

 

[Mr. Habib]

From the Indiana Constitution; Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.
Legally, I would say no. However, if your intent to invoke jury nullification is found out during jury selection, then I would guess that your chances of being seated on the jury would be about zero.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

If you let ANYONE know prior to jury sequestration that you believe in jury nullification there is an excellent chance that you will be removed from the jury. The government HATES for any citizen to know that they have this power to veto government abuse and they will do anything to prevent your exercise of it.

The best course is to keep your mouth shut until you vote not guilty, then simply assert that the prosecution has failed to prove its case.

You, as a single juror, have the power to free the defendant. You just have to stick to your guns.

 

[jdhaines]

Also...Jury Nullification isn't a "thing" you can do or a "choice" you can make. If someone is on trial for murder, and you think he did it yet agree with the circumstances you can find him not guilty. The way nullification works is that you judge the law and find him not guilty even though you may believe he has actually committed the crime he is charged with. The facts that give you this power is all part of the power of a juror. You aren't allowed to be asked why you found a certain way, and your verdict is FINAL. No more discussion, no more arguing, no what about the video tape, etc. If the whole jury agrees it's over. That's jury nullification. You don't have to assert anything about the prosecution. You hand the Judge the verdict and sit quietly.

The judge and the legal system assumes juries will find guilty if they believe the person on trial committed the crime, and not guilty if they don't believe they did. Jury Nullification encompasses the actions and set of circumstances for that system to break down. Its extremely powerful, in fact I've seen it argued that a juror is the most powerful person in the country at the time of deliberation. Even the president's decision can be overturned...a juror's cannot.

To answer the OP's question: You can be removed for multiple things. They couldn't remove you for the actual cause of "juror elected to use jury nullification." If you make your case to the other jurors, and they agree you give the verdict and the judge can suck it if he or anyone else in the country doesn't like it.

Look at Casey Anthony. The jurors made their decision even though the media and that ***** Nancy Grace wanted to hang them for it.

 

[John Galt]

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

^^^ This!^^^ If people were more aware of the power our state and federal Constitutions recognizes of the individual, our problems would be WAAAAAAAY less!

 

[cobber]

They couldn't remove you for the actual cause of "juror elected to use jury nullification." If you make your case to the other jurors, and they agree you give the verdict and the judge can suck it if he or anyone else in the country doesn't like it.

A juror actively soliciting nullification could be removed by the judge anytime prior to the conclusion of jury deliberations, which would probably result in a mistrial.


A jury can acquit without nullifying, by finding the facts did not prove the offense. But if society is too unengaged to choose the legislature, judiciary, and executive with care, jury nullification isn't going to do much to reverse the trend toward more governmental power.


If nullification is the "right" of the jury, then criminals should be free to nullify too, right? If a group can ignore the law, then why not the individual? And who then can say which laws people may or may not ignore?


A recent example: the OJ verdict. Right or wrong?


If citizens have the right to ignore the enacted laws, then how about vigilante justice, if some people believe the laws are too lax?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Except jury nullification was part of the reason Prohibition went bye-bye.

Is jury nullficiation still around after the Indiana Supreme Court amended the state Constitution by repealing Article I, §19 in Holden?

Ronnie Holden v. State :: May, 2003 :: Indiana Supreme Court Decisions :: Indiana Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia

If nullification is the "right" of the jury, then criminals should be free to nullify too, right?

If said criminals serve on the jury then yes they are free to nullify.

If a group can ignore the law, then why not the individual?

If that individual serves on a jury, then yes.

And who then can say which laws people may or may not ignore?

A jury can.

A recent example: the OJ verdict. Right or wrong?

It is final.

 

[dross]

A juror actively soliciting nullification could be removed by the judge anytime prior to the conclusion of jury deliberations, which would probably result in a mistrial.


A jury can acquit without nullifying, by finding the facts did not prove the offense. But if society is too unengaged to choose the legislature, judiciary, and executive with care, jury nullification isn't going to do much to reverse the trend toward more governmental power.


If nullification is the "right" of the jury, then criminals should be free to nullify too, right? If a group can ignore the law, then why not the individual? And who then can say which laws people may or may not ignore?


A recent example: the OJ verdict. Right or wrong?


If citizens have the right to ignore the enacted laws, then how about vigilante justice, if some people believe the laws are too lax?

The jury IS the government. One of the reasons a jury trial was considered such a pillar of freedom is because they are the last judge of the law.

The judge is forced to follow the law. The attorneys are fighting for their clients. Only the jury can look at the THIS case, this one case that is theirs and say, "The law as it is written doesn't do justice in this particular case."

The jury is the safety valve if the system fails at every other level.

 

[rambone]

Sure, you've got to convince the other jurors, but getting most people convinced of their right to nullify is a rough go.

Nullification only takes 1 juror...
...am I wrong?

Better to not go on any education campaigns inside the jury box.

Educate your neighbors before they serve.

 

[Fargo]

Nullification only takes 1 juror...
...am I wrong?

Kind of. One juror can hang the jury and prevent a conviction in that particular trial. However, this results in a mistrial and the person can usually be tried again with a different jury.

To truly nullify, you have to get a unanimous "not guilty" so jeopardy attaches and there can be no retrial.

Best,

Joe

 

[rambone]

Kind of. One juror can hang the jury and prevent a conviction in that particular trial. However, this results in a mistrial and the person can usually be tried again with a different jury.

To truly nullify, you have to get a unanimous "not guilty" so jeopardy attaches and there can be no retrial.

I see. True "nullifications" must be pretty rare. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Al B]

I am sure it has been posted before....
Fully Informed Jury Association
Some good reading on their site.

 

[jeremy]

Intevesting, very intervesting...

 

[KLB]

I am sure it has been posted before....
Fully Informed Jury Association
Some good reading on their site.

Thanks for sharing that.

 

[John Galt]

If you are on trial for a BS charge, can't you or the defense attorney point out to the jury their Right and essentially, obligation as a jury, to abide by Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution? From what I have come to believe about our "justice" system, the Founding Fathers implemented enough safeguards for the individual that there would be a fairly simple method for justice and it was never intended for "justice" to become the business that it is today. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the first Supreme Court even acknowledged and stated that the jury had the obligation to judge the facts and the law. Receiving true justice should not take potentially years of income for the common person.

 

[NYFelon]

<~~~~~~ The best justice limited resources can buy