I recently got a notice from the county where I live that I may soon be chosen for jury duty. So I started looking up information about serving jury duty and I came upon something interesting. The article seems to think that the point of a trail by jury is so that a small percentage of people can stop the government from creating unjust laws. A member of a jury is apparently completely within his or her right to call for a person to be not guilty if they feel the law is unjust. So because of this fact that it only takes a small percentage of the population to be a 1 in 12 jurors so that no person is convicted on an unjust law. Apparently judges once had to remind jurors of the fact that they have this right but the government passed a law that it is no longer required.

Anyone have thoughts on this?

I recently got a notice from the county where I live that I may soon be chosen for jury duty. So I started looking up information about serving jury duty and I came upon something interesting. The article seems to think that the point of a trail by jury is so that a small percentage of people can stop the government from creating unjust laws. A member of a jury is apparently completely within his or her right to call for a person to be not guilty if they feel the law is unjust. So because of this fact that it only takes a small percentage of the population to be a 1 in 12 jurors so that no person is convicted on an unjust law. Apparently judges once had to remind jurors of the fact that they have this right but the government passed a law that it is no longer required.

Anyone have thoughts on this?
How interesting! I have been summonsed and will need to contact the court tomorrow (Saturday) to "check in" and find out if I will be required to show up Monday for selection. If I don't "check in" I could be found in contempt!

I don't know what type of cases might be pending, of course, but I think I'd like to read up on this as well. If you have a link...

Here it is
~~@Com~~~ FIJA: NATIONAL: Fully Informed Jury Association Home Page~~~~ (http://nowscape.com/fija/fija_us.htm)

Hello michealb:

Yeah, you're talking about jury nullification. That means the legal system resides in the hands of your peers. That's exactly as it should be.

excon

Hi y'all! I called the clerk, and I'm going in Monday. I thank you for the info, Michael.

The obvious point of a jury trial is to determine the guilt or innocence of a person charged with a serious crime. Of course there are jury trials in serious civil cases as well, but you seem to be talking about a criminal case.

To be blunt about it, there is nothing a small percentage of people can do to stop the government from making unjust laws, but, as was mentioned above, if that particular jury doesn't like the law, or some other aspect of the case that they think is unjust, they will make a decision to acquit on these factors as opposed to the evidence in the case. Its not how the system is supposed to work and is harmful to future victims of the people who are not convicted when they should have been.

Whether you can decide the case based on whether you 'like' the law may entirely depend upon the state you're in. I think in some, you cannot take that into consideration. It would be up to the defendant's appeals (?) An example would be, say, a person shoots an intruder in their house. The police think it's justified but the DA decides to prosecute (like if you live in Wash DC - for another 20 days or so <g>). The jury might think law unjust but it's still the law (for another 20 days or so).

BTW - excon, isn't jury nullification is when the judge throws out the jury's decision?

Jury nullification has nothing to do with the judge. There is an excellent definition at this site:

jury nullification - legal definition (http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/D6518A4B-0704-4202-9F9D87C18E025E19/alpha/J/)


No, it doesn't vary from state to state, the English common law, which is used in every state but Louisana, requires that juries deliberations are closed, confidential and juries do not have to explain why they reached their verdict in a normal trial. I hope you understand that I am talking about a normal trial jury, not a grand jury, which an entirely different ballgame.

When you go for jury duty if you are assigned to a criminal case the judge will probably instruct you that the role of the judge is to determine law and the role of the jury is to determine fact. You will be asked during the selection process if you will be able to apply the law as the judge defines it for you - if you say "no" or "it depends" then you will probably be dismissed from the jury pool. However, once you're in the deliberation phase the fate of the defendant is entirely in the jury's hands, and it's indeed possible for the jury to acquit a defendant based on the jury not liking the particular law in question. It is rare, though. More likely is you have one or two people who refuse to see things the majority's way, and so no conensus is reached and there is a mistrial.

Excon is correct in identifying the term jury nullification. There is no requirement of the judge to inform jurors of this right but it is in fact one that has been assumed to be a jury's privilege . They can't stop the gvt. From creating unjust laws ,but they can determine in a specific case that the law is unjust by rendering a verdict against the gvt. In the case they are on. It can only nullify the law if enough juries render the same verdict in similar cases.

Tomder55, a law will stay on the books no matter what any number of juries decide. However, if such a thing as you describe is going on, legislators and policy-makers better wake up and take notice. Such a thing would be all over the media.

excon, isn't jury nullification is when the judge throws out the jury's decision?
Hello WV:

Lets say that a guy gets caught with pot. He wants a jury trial. He admits he had the pot, but the jury doesn't like the charge, so they find him not guilty anyway.

Therefore, the jury nullified the law (at least in this instance).

excon

The case from TX yesterday where the man who shot two burglars coming out of his neighbor's house is a case in point. Texas law says that you have a right to use deadly force to protect your own property, and certainly in self-defense, but this case involved two burglars who were robbing the man's neighbor. He shot them both as they were running away (in the back). There was some disagreement as to whether they had crossed a corner of the man's property, but in no way was this a case of self-defense or or protecting his own property. Nevertheless, the grand jury refused to indict. Seems like a case where the jury decided that the man was justified, even though the law was not on his side. See:
Joe Horn cleared by grand jury in Pasadena shootings | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5864151.html)

As I mentioned previously, there is a whopping difference between a grand jury, whose purpose it is determine if there is probable cause to charge a person with a crime, and a trial jury, which decides whether a person is guilty or not guilty.

Without knowing all the facts and the wording of the statute, and particularly the measure to which the shooter felt he was placed in fear at the time, I think it would be impossible to make a judgement as to whether the decision was rendered because of jury nullificatrion or lack of probable cause.

In my state, under the circrumstances described, I can guarantee you that this person would be charged and it is standard procedure here not to submit a case for grand jury consideration unless the prosecutor is sure that an indictment (sometime known as a true bill) will result.

The comment at the bottom of my last post is an important one. Race is also a factor in jury nullification, not just the dislike of a certain law. I have read about some cases in New York where the jury was the same race as the defendant and they acquitted even though the evidence was said to be clearly present for a conviction.

Hello again,

Jim is right on...

Let me tell you a little bit about a grand jury... It's the PROSECUTORS domain... HE runs it. HE present the witnesses HE likes. There are NO defense attorney's present. There are NO defense witnesses. Witnesses can be asked questions by the jurors, and they are.

It's been said, without too much tongue in cheek, that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich if he wanted to.

Therefore, I maintain that the grand jury was called for the purpose of NOT indicting him. It was called for the purpose of letting the white men of Texas know that they can kill Mexicans if the mood strikes them.

excon

In addition to that, prosecutor's normally don't present cases to the grand jury unless they are pretty much certin they will get an indictment, or to put it another way, a finding by the grand jury that probable cause existed. And probable cause is a low burden to meet when compared to "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I can imagine a case in which a prosecutor who doesn't want to charge a person with a crime, but also doesn't want the burden for the decision to fall on him, would turn it over to a grand jury to make the same decision if the other requirements for grand jury consideration are met.

Hello again:

Tomder, who made the comment at the bottom of JimGunthers post #15 would rather forget that the MAIN prosecution witness in the OJ trial, a cop by the name of Mark Furman, was proven, on the witness stand, to be a LIAR and a RACIST. Therefore, it shouldn't be surprising that the prosecution would lose. However, they lost because the prosecutors were incompetents, not because the jury was racist.

excon

There's an underlying issue in the Tx story: Those two were committing a crime on his neighbor. It wasn't his right to use deadly force and for that he should face the repercussions.
However, if I see my neighbor being assaulted, and I know I could be next, if nobody can stop the bad guy, shouldn't I take steps to halt the assault on my neighbor?
What if that neighbor was you, Ex? If they chose to beat you because you were in the house, instead of robbing an empty house, would you want me to phone the police and wait for them to come?
Or would you rather have me persuade the bad guy's to stop right now?

Hello Cap'n:

Where you been?

Shooting 'em in the back is waaaaay different than persuading them to hang around.

excon

It is good to choose a trial by jury if you are being charged for a crime that is legally wrong but morally right where public opinion would be on your side.

I had to do it a couple of years ago.
The person had robbed 2 stores and left blood on the door. Thing was he had worked at the store 2 years earlier.

Being that we were just ordinary people we had no knowledge of how long DNA would stay on the door for but one guy in the jury did know. It had to have been relatively fresh for them to positively ID him.

We had to disregard what the other jury member had told us as the lawyer had never mentioned it during the trial.

He got off scot free.

The system doesn't always work...

We had to disregard what the other jury member had told us as the lawyer had never mentioned it during the trial.

He got off scot free. The system doesn't always work...Hello shaz:

Here in the US, the jury is free to discuss ANYTHING when they deliberate. That's the idea behind a jury. I'll bet you could have done the same thing down under. Yes, it's true, the judge will tell you differently, but see below. The jury is the ULTIMATE decider in the fate of its peers. That's as it should be.

The case that solidified jury nullification was an English case... It used to be that judges INSTRUCTED juries how to rule, and if they didn't conform, they would be imprisoned!

By the late 17th century, the court's ability to punish juries was removed in the Bushell case. It involves a juror on the case against William Penn. In 1670, William Penn and William Mead were arrested for illegally preaching a Quaker sermon and disturbing the peace.

Four jurors, led by Edward Bushell refused to find them guilty but instead of dismissing the jury the judge sent them back for further deliberations. Despite the fact that the judge demanded a guilty verdict, the jury this time unanimously found Penn guilty of preaching but acquitted him on the charge of disturbing the peace and acquitted Mead of all charges. The jury was then subsequently kept for three days without "meat, drink, fire and tobacco" to force them to bring in a guilty verdict and when they failed to do so the judge ended the trial.

As punishment the judge ordered the jurors imprisoned until they paid a fine to the court. Four jurors refused to pay the fine and after several months, Edward Bushell sought a writ of habeas corpus. Chief Justice Vaughan, sitting on the Court of Common Pleas, discharged the writ, released them, called the power to punish a jury "absurd" and forbade judges from punishing jurors for returning a verdict the judge disagreed with.

So, you could have convicted the guy.

excon