TexasCHLforum.com

A Tarrant County jury found a defendant not guilty in a DWI trial on October 29th, after having questions about the Intoxilyzer device used after his arrest. The shocking thing isn't that a DWI case went to a jury trial—though that is certainly rare—but how visiting retired Judge Jerry Ray responded to that "not guilty" verdict.

This is what the judge told the jury:
I've been at this such a long time I know better than to get angry. But you just decided to ignore the law and your oath, and you know you did. The note that you sent out says, “Can we ignore the Intoxilyzer.” And you have the definitions of intoxication. And they were certainly—At least that one was very plain in this case and up on the board for you to see. And for whatever reasons, you chose to ignore that part of the evidence. And you have the right to do that. It's called jury nullification. It's when a jury decides to ignore the law or ignore the evidence. And they just want a certain outcome, and they maneuver until they get there. Perfect example, the O.J. Simpson trial. He clearly committed murder, and the jury didn't want to convict him, so they found a way to—to render a not guilty verdict. So it happens. I've been around over 40 years in this profession, tried an awful lot of cases as a defense lawyer, as a prosecutor, and as a judge, and it happens. But this ranks among there as one of the most bizarre verdicts that I've seen. Thank you for your service, and you are excused.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/daily-post/ ... -ever-seen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's our system and whether we like it or not, the jury spoke. Who gets to decide what case we alter? There are clearly some cases that I believe the jury got wrong, but I wasn't there and they are the ones tasked with the deed. Better to let a guilty man go then convict and innocent man!

That is true, but the judge saw all the same evidence the jury did. If it really was jury nullification, I wonder why they wouldn't or couldn't find him guilty.

C-dub wrote:That is true, but the judge saw all the same evidence the jury did. If it really was jury nullification, I wonder why they wouldn't or couldn't find him guilty.

Jurors are human. Not everybody can dish out justice.

C-dub wrote:That is true, but the judge saw all the same evidence the jury did. If it really was jury nullification, I wonder why they wouldn't or couldn't find him guilty.

Apparently the jury didn't think there was enough evidence to arrest Tran in the first place.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairp ... i_char.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hope that guy realizes how lucky he is and changes his habits. Otherwise, he might end up killing someone. I wonder what those jury members will think about letting him go ten.

C-dub wrote:I hope that guy realizes how lucky he is and changes his habits. Otherwise, he might end up killing someone. I wonder what those jury members will think about letting him go ten.

I just re-read the transcript and Tran was arrested when he was 17 years old. He is now 21 years old! That is very long time for a DWI to be adjudicated.

I dunno if Tran was really guilty or not, but it was pretty poor behavior by the judge to go spouting off like that on the bench. I think his traveling days should be over.

He's already retired and was probably just helping out with the case load. He probably doesn't care what anyone thinks if he spouts off.

C-dub wrote:He's already retired and was probably just helping out with the case load. He probably doesn't care what anyone thinks if he spouts off.

I've been a juror in a civil trial presided over by a visiting, retired judge and I was shocked at the amount of personal opinion and agenda pushing he engaged in with his commentary and instructions. He was trying to get us to extract over $100,000+ dollars from a poor woman who had nothing to do with the plaintiff's damages. The plaintiff, and only the plaintiff was to blame for their stupidity and the jury made that quite clear to the judge when we came back in 30 minutes with a decision to absolve the defendant. Man was he chapped!

If it was a unanimous jury verdict, it sounds like a hissy fit because none of the 12 citizens shared his personal opinion.

WildBill wrote:

C-dub wrote:That is true, but the judge saw all the same evidence the jury did. If it really was jury nullification, I wonder why they wouldn't or couldn't find him guilty.

Apparently the jury didn't think there was enough evidence to arrest Tran in the first place.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairp ... i_char.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well then unlike what Texas monthly claims it was jury nullification. They ignored the test results so they could find not guilty because they didn't buy the reason for the stop. The issue would be that they are not supposed to decide if the stop was legal, that was already adjudicated.

EEllis wrote:

WildBill wrote:

C-dub wrote:That is true, but the judge saw all the same evidence the jury did. If it really was jury nullification, I wonder why they wouldn't or couldn't find him guilty.

Apparently the jury didn't think there was enough evidence to arrest Tran in the first place.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairp ... i_char.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well then unlike what Texas monthly claims it was jury nullification. They ignored the test results so they could find not guilty because they didn't buy the reason for the stop. The issue would be that they are not supposed to decide if the stop was legal, that was already adjudicated.

The jury probably didn't hear the motion to determine if the stop was legal. Neither did I. It was probably decided before the trial started. Since I wasn't at the trial and haven't read the transcript, I am not sure why the jury didn't think the arrest was justified. I have some thoughts about it, but it would only be conjecture.

"Ignoring" the test results does not make it nullification. Deciding that the DWI law is unjust and refusing to convict under it would make it nullification. Evidence gets ignored all the time, for very good reasons - and evidence often conflicts, so one piece may be "ignored" in favor of another.. If the driver testifies he had only one beer, and the intoxilyer rings up .038, one or the other of those pieces of evidence gets "ignored." Since so far I have not seen a transcript of the trial itself, we don't know if Tran's attorney attacked the integrity of the intoxilyzer (sp?) itself -- and can be good reasons to. I don't have it at my fingertips, but some time back one of the Texas PDs was found to not have calibrated their breathylizers on schedule, and perhaps had pencil-whipped the calibrations they did do. In Tran's case, we don't know yet.

But we do have a transcript of what the judge said, and I still think the judge was way out of line. had I been one of the jurors I would have told him so.

ELB wrote:"
But we do have a transcript of what the judge said, and I still think the judge was way out of line. had I been one of the jurors I would have told him so.

You might as well say "Throw me in jail and fine me!" because that is what would happen. As to the nullification, reportedly jurors told the defense attorney that they didn't think the defendant should of been stopped. So if that is the case the jury has no input on the RS for the stop, that gets handled separately, and as such it shouldn't affect the verdict. If it did then yes the jury is practicing nullification. They chose to ignore the proven guilt of the defendant because they disagreed with some other issue. The kid blew .92 so it wasn't that they wanted to give a little slack or were concerned about the accuracy of the test, they just wanted to find the guy not guilty.