TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/opini ... .html?_r=1

The above is an interesting article regarding the concept of "jury nullification".

The concept here is that even if person is guilty of something under the letter of the law, the jurors are the
ultimate determinants of whether a person will be found "guilty" or "not guilty", and may vote to hold the
person "not guilty" if they want to. Although the judge may not like their verdict, the judge won't be able
to punish the jurors.

I once worked with a guy who was a "tax rebel", stating that the US government had no right to impose an
income tax. He provided me with a handout pamphlet making that case, but the more interesting pamphlet
that he gave me regarded "jury nullification."

The link above discusses jury nullification with regard to marijuana cases. But consider that you were on a
jury and some CHL was in the hot seat, being tried for something. If you felt that he was a good person that
simply was ensnared by the letter of the law, you could free this man by voting to acquit.

I like the concept that the jurors have more power than they think.

Since IANAL, I don't know how a judge's instructions to a jury just prior to deliberations would square with the
concept of "jury nullification".

Does anyone have any thoughts on this, or have direct experience?

SIA

surprise_i'm_armed wrote: The above is an interesting article regarding the concept of "jury nullification".

I like the concept that the jurors have more power than they think.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this, or have direct experience?

SIA

I don't have any direct experience. IMO, there are many laws which should be "nullified".

I don't imagine that a DA or judge would like it, but I think it's a great idea. I don't think that a judge would include that in jury instructions, but the jury doesn't have to explain to the DA or judge why they voted to acquit a defendant.

On the other hand, it's probably not the best strategy for a defense lawyer.

I have read quite a bit of information on the subject. If you ever give any hint that you may believe that juries have the power of nullification, you can bet you will not be on the jury.

Here is snippet from one of my earlier posts on another topic:

Jury Nullification is the only way to change our runaway government. If juries refuse to convict defendants charged with particular crime, the prosecutors will eventually quit filling those charges. Jury Nullification is a dirty word in most legal circles with judges even telling juries that they cannot find a defendant not guilty just because they believe the law is unjust.

This is an interesting and short read:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Other informational links about Jury Nullification:
http://www.fija.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/histo ... -null.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.washburnlaw.edu/wlj/46-2/art ... andrew.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (A long read.)

I thought jury nullification was the other way around. If a jury convicted someone, but there wasn't really enough evidence to support the conviction a judge could nullify the jury's verdict and set aside the conviction.

Okay, I looked it up and I'm wrong, so what are the circumstances I'm thinking about? I have heard of jury nullification happening, but didn't know that's what it was called.

Ah, found it!

Judgement Notwithstanding Verdict (JNOV)

It can be a little tricky, but that's what I was thinking about.

C-dub wrote:Ah, found it!

Judgement Notwithstanding Verdict (JNOV)

It can be a little tricky, but that's what I was thinking about.

This is very rare. A judge can also issue a directed [not quilty] verdict before the case goes to the jury. Also very rare.

Mentioning Jury Nullification is the *quickest* way out of Jury Duty...

pbwalker wrote:Mentioning Jury Nullification is the *quickest* way out of Jury Duty...

ANY sign of cognitive thinking is the quickest way out of jury duty.

And I suspect you dare not discuss it in the Jury Room during deliberations.

I thought everyone knew about this, another one of those "common to you knowledge" things. As far as the judges go, what are they going to do, arrest them for not following instructions? Simply say "We did not find the evidence to be sufficient/reliable enough to find this person guilty", then THEY have to prove that you thought otherwise, which as long as you didn't actually mention "Jury Nullification" I wish them good luck.

Not surprised to read the actual article is really discussing how the federal government is seeking to grab more power unconstitutionally.

This is why guilty people choose a trial by jury instead of a trial by judge. A judges verdict must be based upon the letter of the law. A jury's verdict is almost always at least partially based on emotion. "yeah I know he did it, but I would've done the same thing in his shoes".

The power of the courts is the power of the courts. If a judge has the power to say "unconstitutional" then so does a jury.

Jurors are usually ignorant of the law and the power that they have.
Judges and prosecutors frown on informing jurors of the power they have
Anyone with any legal training is automatically culled out of being a juror

They also don't want felons who have had expierence with the law that is
why felons are ban from jury duty no jail house lawyers allowed on a jury.
When I was transporting inmates for work release I learned a lot about what it is really like.

Anyone who flames me for this statement is a nieve fool