FIJA!!

Jury Nullification is the great gift to our legal system. It's too bad more jurors don't know about it or exercise their right to implement it.

I've served on two juries, and in both cases, I came to the part of the questionnaire where I promise to not exercise the principle of jury nullification. Of course it doesn't SAY "jury nullification." If it said that, someone would wait until voir dire to ask, and the shit would really hit the fan. In Cook County, IL, people have been held in contempt of court for mentioning those two words in front of the jury pool. In both cases, I clicked, "Yes", that I would not exercise the principle, then promptly vowed to do so if the case called for it. Dishonest? Perhaps, but not as dishonest as the court saying that I did not have the right in the first place. As it happens, I sorta exercised it in one case, when I was named foreman (I stepped into the washroom while we first entered the jury room, and emerged foreman). The case involved an accident along a stretch of road that I knew well, and the plaintiff did a terrible job of describing the trickiness of merging there. I introduced evidence not presented by either side (essentially a detailed diagram of the roadway). The result was that we asked more insightful questions to each other and were able to determine relative culpability far more easily. I hadn't made up my mind prior to entering the jury room, and used my 'extra knowledge' to clarify, not influence. It's been almost nine years, and I have not been called since. If I do, I won't check that box.

Jury nullification is a mixed bag at best. Back in the "good old days" when black people were being lynched, if any of the killers were actually brought to trial they were often found not guilty by all white juries. Those are probably the most obvious examples. The criminal trial of the cops who beat Rodney King and the OJ Simpson trial are often cited as cases of jury nullification as well. I'm sure others could cite more examples, but it's not necessary because we all know it happens.

This is not to say that I think jury nullification is always bad. In the above examples the crimes were assault and murder, which most would agree are crimes that should be punished. It is just to punish those who deliberately harm or kill. But in the cases of "crimes" that aren't crimes at all, like marijuana possession, or soliciting prostitution, or playing the numbers, etc, I would wholeheartedly embrace jury nullification. I believe laws against pot usage, prostitution, and gambling are unjust, so jury nullification is perfect in those instances.

I know many lawyers and legal scholars think that jury nullification in any form is a perversion of justice. They'll say that if citizens don't like the laws then they need to tell their legislators to rewrite them, and we should NOT be changing the laws in the jury room. But I don't care. I still have my free will. With a SNAP of a couple neurons I nullify all their arguments. >> ^Trancecoach:

Jury Nullification is the great gift to our legal system. It's too bad more jurors don't know about it or exercise their right to implement it.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Jury Nullification is the great gift to our legal system. It's too bad more jurors don't know about it or exercise their right to implement it.


Only jury nullification didn't happen in this case; there was no trial and no jury. Actually, it's a good example of how careful courts are to prevent jury nullification before it happens. People would have had to lie to get on the jury in the first place, and lying on jury selection questions isn't one of your rights.

To be clear, the court would have scheduled another date for jury selection if the accused hadn't made a plea bargain. You don't generally get out of charges because they can't seat a jury on the first go.

It's good to see it's getting harder to place a jury on minor pot possession cases. But even if half of jury selections failed, that doesn't mean they would stop prosecuting. For example, in Utah it's not uncommon for jury selection to fail for DUI cases. This is because two of the selection questions are "Do you belong to a religion that finds the drinking of alcohol immoral?" then the followup if they answer yes "do you drink alcohol anyway?". If you answer yes to the first and no to the second, you're eliminated for cause. As you can imagine those questions alone eliminate a swath of the jury pool in a state that's about half mormon.

But do they stop charging people with DUIs in Utah? No, the prosecutors are just get used to the fact that they might have to wait through a jury pool or two.

Although Montana is rather conservative about most things, on the marijuana issue it is suprisingly liberal. There is medical marijuana there for one thing. It's just about as easy to get medical pot in Montana as it is in California. They also have shops that sell all the latest and greatest strains, and even delivery service! It's probably the proliferation of medical marijuana throughout the state which contributed to this, as well as Montana being extremely anti-government. The natives there don't like the Government telling them what to do, or how to run their lives. It may be the nexus of these two things which caused this to happen.

Lawyers and scholars do not believe that jury nullification is a perversion of justice. Days one and two of my substantive (cf. procedural) criminal *law class were about the importance of nullification as another check against the powers of a legislature. Democracy at its core.

Adding video to channels (Law) - requested by RhesusMonk.

It's Thom Hartmann!

I guess he's part of RT's network now too?

*news

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by NetRunner.