Opinion of Jury Nullification

[JRP1994]

What are your thoughts on jury nullification? In your view, do juries have this right? If not, should they?

[Deus Naturae]

Juries already have the right to do so, as jurors can't be punished for their decision. The only way to get rid of jury nullification would to be to change that, which would obviously be horrible.

[Bacon King]

I support it but I'm totally fine with the common practice of judges usually not allowing juries to be informed of this right. In general terms the legislative branch makes laws and the judicial branch just interprets them; nullification should be reserved for situations that are inherently unjust/immoral. If judges were to routinely inform juries they can selectively interpret laws then it'd just cause greater discrimination in sentencing than even what already exists

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Well the courts' job is to follow the law, obviously, but with that being said you can't really change it with-out undermining the jury system altogether. If higher-up authorities can tell the jury how they're allowed to vote, and/or punish them if they vote incorrectly that would defeat the whole purpose. In that case you might as well give all the power to the judge.

It's really something that's been done to do both good as well as bad so it's really hard to say.   

[Del Tachi]

Of course juries have this right; its juries' ultimate responsibility to judge the evidence presented in the case and arrive at a verdict; therefore, juries can't make a "wrong" decision.  

Should juries be informed of this right?  I don't think its really necessary; if someone sitting on a jury had a qualm with whatever law someone was being charged under, it would seem like to me that that juror would establish on his own accord a somewhat higher standard of evidence needed to convict the person.  I know that I would.  That of itself is kind of an almost pseudo-type of jury nullification.  Interestingly, all it would only take one juror to do this. 

Southern juries didn't have to be informed of jury nullification to refuse to convict lynch mobs, and Northern juries likewise didn't need to hear about it from lawyers/judged to refuse to convict persons under fugitive slave laws.  I imagine that juries today nullify in hundreds of cases each year, so JN is alive and well as it stands already.    

[they don't love you like i love you]

The question as to whether or not juries should be informed of it strikes me as pretty silly. The fact that jurors have this right should be blatantly obvious to anyone.

And I'd have to say I'm for it, since there are certain laws (the most obvious of course being marijuana) that I simply would not be willing to ever convict someone of as a matter of conscience. So it'd be kind of hypocritical for me to say that's wrong.

[Del Tachi]

The question as to whether or not juries should be informed of it strikes me as pretty silly. The fact that jurors have this right should be blatantly obvious to anyone.

And I'd have to say I'm for it, since there are certain laws (the most obvious of course being marijuana) that I simply would not be willing to ever convict someone of as a matter of conscience. So it'd be kind of hypocritical for me to say that's wrong.

If you were selected to serve on a jury for a marijuana case, and you were asked something to the effect of  "Do you have any beliefs that would prevent you from making a decision based solely on the law?" (which is standard practice in Mississippi), what would your response be?

[SPC]

The question as to whether or not juries should be informed of it strikes me as pretty silly. The fact that jurors have this right should be blatantly obvious to anyone.

And I'd have to say I'm for it, since there are certain laws (the most obvious of course being marijuana) that I simply would not be willing to ever convict someone of as a matter of conscience. So it'd be kind of hypocritical for me to say that's wrong.

If you were selected to serve on a jury for a marijuana case, and you were asked something to the effect of  "Do you have any beliefs that would prevent you from making a decision based solely on the law?" (which is standard practice in Mississippi), what would your response be?

If its phrased exactly like that, then I would say no, as one could make the argument that the specific statute prohibiting marijuana contradicts a higher law. If the question was "Do you have any beliefs that would prevent you from making a decision based solely on the [insert marijuana statute here]?" then I would probably say yes.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The question as to whether or not juries should be informed of it strikes me as pretty silly. The fact that jurors have this right should be blatantly obvious to anyone.

And I'd have to say I'm for it, since there are certain laws (the most obvious of course being marijuana) that I simply would not be willing to ever convict someone of as a matter of conscience. So it'd be kind of hypocritical for me to say that's wrong.

If you were selected to serve on a jury for a marijuana case, and you were asked something to the effect of  "Do you have any beliefs that would prevent you from making a decision based solely on the law?" (which is standard practice in Mississippi), what would your response be?

I'd state my opinions on marijuana and would almost certainly be removed from the pool.

[Badger]

The question as to whether or not juries should be informed of it strikes me as pretty silly. The fact that jurors have this right should be blatantly obvious to anyone.

And I'd have to say I'm for it, since there are certain laws (the most obvious of course being marijuana) that I simply would not be willing to ever convict someone of as a matter of conscience. So it'd be kind of hypocritical for me to say that's wrong.

If you were selected to serve on a jury for a marijuana case, and you were asked something to the effect of  "Do you have any beliefs that would prevent you from making a decision based solely on the law?" (which is standard practice in Mississippi), what would your response be?

I'd state my opinions on marijuana and would almost certainly be removed from the pool.

As well you should be, or any other trial you have a passionate pre-ordained belief about the subject that would keep you from following the law.

All you "progressive" fans of jury nullification need to re-read To Kill A Mockingbird.

[Bojack Horseman]

I can really only see myself considering jury nullification in the cases of felony murder. Take for example the Elkhart 4 case, where 4 kids broke into a house, a 5th one backed out and sat on a porch, they didn't steal anything, they fled when they saw the owner who then shot one of them to death, and they were all convicted of Felony Murder somehow and sentenced to 45-55 years in prison. 55 years in prison for breaking into a house. The homeowner should have been the one brought up on murder charges, you don't shoot someone who's running away from you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I can really only see myself considering jury nullification in the cases of felony murder. Take for example the Elkhart 4 case, where 4 kids broke into a house, a 5th one backed out and sat on a porch, they didn't steal anything, they fled when they saw the owner who then shot one of them to death, and they were all convicted of Felony Murder somehow and sentenced to 45-55 years in prison. 55 years in prison for breaking into a house. The homeowner should have been the one brought up on murder charges, you don't shoot someone who's running away from you.

Wow, that's a ridiculous case. Only in a FUBAR world do they each get half a century while George Zimmerman is free.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The question as to whether or not juries should be informed of it strikes me as pretty silly. The fact that jurors have this right should be blatantly obvious to anyone.

And I'd have to say I'm for it, since there are certain laws (the most obvious of course being marijuana) that I simply would not be willing to ever convict someone of as a matter of conscience. So it'd be kind of hypocritical for me to say that's wrong.

If you were selected to serve on a jury for a marijuana case, and you were asked something to the effect of  "Do you have any beliefs that would prevent you from making a decision based solely on the law?" (which is standard practice in Mississippi), what would your response be?

I'd state my opinions on marijuana and would almost certainly be removed from the pool.

As well you should be, or any other trial you have a passionate pre-ordained belief about the subject that would keep you from following the law.

All you "progressive" fans of jury nullification need to re-read To Kill A Mockingbird.

That's kind of a logical fallacy equivalent to saying use of violence is always morally the same whether it's to assault an unrelated person or in self-defense.

There's times when the law is completely unjust or applying it in this circumstances would be where there has to be some sort of recourse against it. Good examples are that woman in New Jersey with the concealed carry permit from another state not valid in NJ, or the case mentioned above with the kids being charged with murder of their friend.

[Deus Naturae]

The question as to whether or not juries should be informed of it strikes me as pretty silly. The fact that jurors have this right should be blatantly obvious to anyone.

And I'd have to say I'm for it, since there are certain laws (the most obvious of course being marijuana) that I simply would not be willing to ever convict someone of as a matter of conscience. So it'd be kind of hypocritical for me to say that's wrong.

If you were selected to serve on a jury for a marijuana case, and you were asked something to the effect of  "Do you have any beliefs that would prevent you from making a decision based solely on the law?" (which is standard practice in Mississippi), what would your response be?

I'd state my opinions on marijuana and would almost certainly be removed from the pool.

As well you should be, or any other trial you have a passionate pre-ordained belief about the subject that would keep you from following the law.

All you "progressive" fans of jury nullification need to re-read To Kill A Mockingbird.

You're the one who needs to re-read the book, as it was about a black man being convicted by a racist jury, not a racist jury acquitting a lyncher or something like that.

And again, jury nullification is already completely legal. The only relevant question is whether juries should be informed of their right to nullify. Hardcore racists will attempt to protect lynchers etc regardless of whether the judge informs them of their right to do so. When it comes to various tyrannical statues, jurors may not be aware that they are allowed to exercise their conscience.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The question as to whether or not juries should be informed of it strikes me as pretty silly. The fact that jurors have this right should be blatantly obvious to anyone.

And I'd have to say I'm for it, since there are certain laws (the most obvious of course being marijuana) that I simply would not be willing to ever convict someone of as a matter of conscience. So it'd be kind of hypocritical for me to say that's wrong.

If you were selected to serve on a jury for a marijuana case, and you were asked something to the effect of  "Do you have any beliefs that would prevent you from making a decision based solely on the law?" (which is standard practice in Mississippi), what would your response be?

I'd state my opinions on marijuana and would almost certainly be removed from the pool.

As well you should be, or any other trial you have a passionate pre-ordained belief about the subject that would keep you from following the law.

All you "progressive" fans of jury nullification need to re-read To Kill A Mockingbird.

You're the one who needs to re-read the book, as it was about a black man being convicted by a racist jury, not a racist jury acquitting a lyncher or something like that.

And again, jury nullification is already completely legal. The only relevant question is whether juries should be informed of their right to nullify. Hardcore racists will attempt to protect lynchers etc regardless of whether the judge informs them of their right to do so. When it comes to various tyrannical statues, jurors may not be aware that they are allowed to exercise their conscience.

Giving Badger the full benefit of the doubt, the problem in To Kill A Mockingbird was not necessarily that the jury was racist, but that even if there was a non-racist on the jury, they could not dare vote anything other than guilty.

[SteveRogers]

I can really only see myself considering jury nullification in the cases of felony murder. Take for example the Elkhart 4 case, where 4 kids broke into a house, a 5th one backed out and sat on a porch, they didn't steal anything, they fled when they saw the owner who then shot one of them to death, and they were all convicted of Felony Murder somehow and sentenced to 45-55 years in prison. 55 years in prison for breaking into a house. The homeowner should have been the one brought up on murder charges, you don't shoot someone who's running away from you.

Wow, that's a ridiculous case. Only in a FUBAR world do they each get half a century while George Zimmerman is free.

Yeah that's felony murder for you. If anyone dies during a felony that you commit, it's treated as if you murdered them. I remember reading a similar case in law school: Two guys break into a house. The police show up. One of them surrenders. The other resists arrest and ends up getting shot and killed by a cop. The other robber gets convicted of felony murder.

As for jury nullification, yes, juries of course have that right. But no, they shouldn't be instructed of that fact because it sort of only works if you don't talk about it.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Was the OJ murder case jury guilty of jury nullification?

[GaussLaw]

I strongly approve of jury nullification for felony murder and cases where there is an archaic law.

Generally, I think we need to bring back the "mens rea"(guilty mind) standard back, which seems to be eroding somewhat recently.

[Del Tachi]

Was the OJ murder case jury guilty of jury nullification?

That's an interesting question, but an impossible one to answer.

Jury nullification is one of those strange things that exists in theory but doesn't really exist in practice even though it definitely does happen somewhat regularly I'm convinced.   Its not as if we can point to specific cases as examples of jury nullification and say that "the jury got it wrong" because juries can't be wrong; its their job to weigh the evidence and arrive at a verdict and the conclusion that they reach can't be criticized as not meeting certain standards because, at the end of the day, the jury is the standard.  Now, I suppose we could count the OJ Simpson trial as an example of JN if we could find a juror from that case who admits who having knowingly nullified, but to my knowledge I don't think such has happened. 

[Bojack Horseman]

I can really only see myself considering jury nullification in the cases of felony murder. Take for example the Elkhart 4 case, where 4 kids broke into a house, a 5th one backed out and sat on a porch, they didn't steal anything, they fled when they saw the owner who then shot one of them to death, and they were all convicted of Felony Murder somehow and sentenced to 45-55 years in prison. 55 years in prison for breaking into a house. The homeowner should have been the one brought up on murder charges, you don't shoot someone who's running away from you.

Wow, that's a ridiculous case. Only in a FUBAR world do they each get half a century while George Zimmerman is free.

Yeah that's felony murder for you. If anyone dies during a felony that you commit, it's treated as if you murdered them. I remember reading a similar case in law school: Two guys break into a house. The police show up. One of them surrenders. The other resists arrest and ends up getting shot and killed by a cop. The other robber gets convicted of felony murder.

As for jury nullification, yes, juries of course have that right. But no, they shouldn't be instructed of that fact because it sort of only works if you don't talk about it.

However, in a case in West Virginia where a storeowner shot two burglars and one was brought up on Felony Murder charges, the West Virginia Supreme Court threw out the Felony Murder indictment in a unanimous decision stating,

"We do not accept Petitioner's argument that the criminal offense of felony murder encompasses every death that occurs in the course of a statutorily-enumerated felony regardless of who causes the death."

[Bacon King]

Was the OJ murder case jury guilty of jury nullification?

no because there was legitimate reasonable doubt of his guilt. If I was on his jury I probably would have vote not guilty, given what I am aware of

[Badger]

The question as to whether or not juries should be informed of it strikes me as pretty silly. The fact that jurors have this right should be blatantly obvious to anyone.

And I'd have to say I'm for it, since there are certain laws (the most obvious of course being marijuana) that I simply would not be willing to ever convict someone of as a matter of conscience. So it'd be kind of hypocritical for me to say that's wrong.

If you were selected to serve on a jury for a marijuana case, and you were asked something to the effect of  "Do you have any beliefs that would prevent you from making a decision based solely on the law?" (which is standard practice in Mississippi), what would your response be?

I'd state my opinions on marijuana and would almost certainly be removed from the pool.

As well you should be, or any other trial you have a passionate pre-ordained belief about the subject that would keep you from following the law.

All you "progressive" fans of jury nullification need to re-read To Kill A Mockingbird.

That's kind of a logical fallacy equivalent to saying use of violence is always morally the same whether it's to assault an unrelated person or in self-defense.

There's times when the law is completely unjust or applying it in this circumstances would be where there has to be some sort of recourse against it. Good examples are that woman in New Jersey with the concealed carry permit from another state not valid in NJ, or the case mentioned above with the kids being charged with murder of their friend.

If you have such strong views a law is immoral or the like, you shouldcampaign to change it, but NOT serve on a jury where your oath is to follow and uphold the law.

Again, seeing so called "progressives" defending a practice fiercely loved by every far-right freeman/militia ultra tea-party type is amusing to say the least.

[Bacon King]

Badger: I would argue that a more nuanced view is appropriate.

Nullifiers should obviously be weeded out during voir dire and juries certainly shouldn't be made aware it in court but I don't think it's really possible to prohibit entirely without unconstitutionally interfering with jury proceedings

I like the take on it in US v Moylan:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would argue that "To Kill A Mockingbird" style racist verdicts have less to do with jury nullification and more to do with a systematically biased jury selection that excluded minorities. On the other hand, jury nullification established the freedom of the press in the colonies, prevented the conviction of Northerners violating the Fugitive Slave Act, protected Vietnam War protestors, and other stuff like that.

I think in certain limited circumstances jury nullification should be tolerated because ultimately if the existing law and its enforcement conflicts so strongly with basic morality that twelve random peers of the accused unanimously agree to disregard the law after taking an oath to uphold it then that probably means the law is better off not being enforced in that instance.

[Deus Naturae]

The question as to whether or not juries should be informed of it strikes me as pretty silly. The fact that jurors have this right should be blatantly obvious to anyone.

And I'd have to say I'm for it, since there are certain laws (the most obvious of course being marijuana) that I simply would not be willing to ever convict someone of as a matter of conscience. So it'd be kind of hypocritical for me to say that's wrong.

If you were selected to serve on a jury for a marijuana case, and you were asked something to the effect of  "Do you have any beliefs that would prevent you from making a decision based solely on the law?" (which is standard practice in Mississippi), what would your response be?

I'd state my opinions on marijuana and would almost certainly be removed from the pool.

As well you should be, or any other trial you have a passionate pre-ordained belief about the subject that would keep you from following the law.

All you "progressive" fans of jury nullification need to re-read To Kill A Mockingbird.

That's kind of a logical fallacy equivalent to saying use of violence is always morally the same whether it's to assault an unrelated person or in self-defense.

There's times when the law is completely unjust or applying it in this circumstances would be where there has to be some sort of recourse against it. Good examples are that woman in New Jersey with the concealed carry permit from another state not valid in NJ, or the case mentioned above with the kids being charged with murder of their friend.

If you have such strong views a law is immoral or the like, you shouldcampaign to change it, but NOT serve on a jury where your oath is to follow and uphold the law.

Again, seeing so called "progressives" defending a practice fiercely loved by every far-right freeman/militia ultra tea-party type is amusing to say the least.

What if you believe the law to be in conflict with a higher law, such as the Constitution?

[they don't love you like i love you]

SPC kind of touched on that above. Really though I see this as kind of an issue where state has more responsibility than any juror.

So if someone disagrees with a law so fervently that they could never vote to uphold it on a jury then they shouldn't be on a jury for that case. Fine. But let's say someone ends up on such a jury anyway? Then who's failed? The state has. At that point it would be completely unfair to ask that person to do something in violation of their moral conscience anyway.

If in a jury pool I'll let my views on certain laws be known and if the state wants to exclude me from juries on such cases then fine, but they're not going to make me sentence someone over such a law anymore than they're going to make me assist in executions (assuming of course that I both lived in a state with the death penalty and was qualified to do so...neither applies but obviously if either one did I would still never be willing to work assisting with an execution under any circumstances whatsoever.)