Opinion of Jury Nullification

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

A Jury can convict or acquit the defendent based on jury nulification, its disagreement with law.

Most appeals crt judges dont overturn a Jury sentence or a trial judge sentence, if it disagrees with a jury's decision; a la Travon Martin or Michael Jackson cases were unique crt situations.

Usually, if a defendent's due process was not aheard to, like bad public defendent or change of venue is a sentence overturned.

[7,052,770]

Is there a term for the opposite of jury nullification, ie, the juror thinks the person is innocent and/or doesn't meet the law's conditions for conviction, but votes "guilty" anyway because the defendant is a bad person and needs to be off the streets?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Is there a term for the opposite of jury nullification, ie, the juror thinks the person is innocent and/or doesn't meet the law's conditions for conviction, but votes "guilty" anyway because the defendant is a bad person and needs to be off the streets?

I think it's still jury nullification. There was talk about this with George Zimmerman.

The difference is, the judge can just flat-out throw the verdict out in this case if they believe the conviction was fraudulent. It's rare, but it has happened.

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

That's also something that could be easily appealed and overturned.

Brings up an interesting scenario though, take someone who is being tried for some crime that a lot of people don't have any problem with, but is also a pretty nasty person otherwise. Like for example a marijuana dealer who also appears to be a spousal abuser. Wonder if convicting that person even if you normally wouldn't would also qualify as jury nullification.

[Badger]

So much to respond to.

@ BK: I agree the providence of the juror's verdict shouldn'tt be disturbed. I don't think I ever said otherwise, even when the resuls comes from jury nullification. I do disagree with the prospect that jury nullification is still occassionally ok today, even though its results must be ratified. Has juror nullification ever avoided an injustice? Of course, and you've given several examples. But nullification i'd argue creates many more injustices than it solves. Don't write off To Kill a Mockingbird type verdicts as a relic of racist juror selection. That can still happen today based on issues as race, or simply "we all agree we have a really bad feeling about this guy, and it's not like they didn't present ANY evidence of his being the one, so...". (And no, BRTD, don't mistakenly believe a jury's decision alone can be "easily appealed and overturned". )

@ Dues Naturae: If you can't wholeheartedly follow the law as the judicial system tells you it is rather than what you think it is (or want it to be), you shouldn't be a juror, period. No offense, but it'd be the height of presumption for either one off us to decide we know what the Constitution REALLY means better than the entire silly ol' judicial system. The whole concept of our system is based on evryone deciding cases on a given set of rules and standards rather than each juror going off on their own tangent about what they individually believe is right or wrong and waht the Constitution 'really' says.

@ BRTD: I actually somwhat agree with you in that if the State (or Defense; everyone keeps mistakenly assuming nullification only screws the prosecution) allows a juror on a case without hitting on a particular issue that may trigger a nullification verdict, then yes the State MAY have failed based on the degree of questioning. Parties are limited in the amount of detail about the case they can discuss with jurors during voir dire. An attorney may be prohibited from going into the particular point that ultimately triggers a 'hell no, never" response from a particular juror.

Especially when the juror, you know, swore an oath to follow the law and the attorneys, God forbid, believed them. So even if a nullification prone juror gets seated due to limited voir dire (regardless whether limited by the Court or the failings of counsel) is still absolutely no excuse for a juor to then violate their oath to follow the law. For Pete's sake one could come forward even after the trial (or even deliberations) have started and be replaced. That's why there are alternate jurors selected. Even if all alternates were excused, better to come forward and cause a mistrrial so a truly impartial jury can rehear the case later. But to actively and illegally participate in tampering with the justice system by replacing--as opposed to supplementing--the law with personal individual values is just plain wrong.

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

I don't think most people think of cases like this when they say "I'll uphold the law" seeing it more as a generic thing like software Terms of Service, or doesn't cover people who say that at first thinking in the abstract but then get a conscience attack when they find out what the case is actually about.

Then there's also cases where the law is badly worded or is outdated in intent and can end up with some types of prosecutions that most people would find horrendous. For example I read about how in Michigan, the state had a law making it a felony to gain "unauthorized access to a computer network", a law that was obviously aimed at computer hacking and the like, but was several decades old and written so vaguely that it actually covered accessing someone else's non-password protected wi-fi network without the owner's permission, and thus not only prohibited that but made it a felony. A felony for piggybacking on wi-fi is not what most people would see as "upholding the law" since it's clearly not what the law was written about.

Another example I heard about thanks to Ingress is Tennessee's statute regarding cemeteries:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like a pretty standard law aimed a preventing cemetery desecration or trespassing. However note the "play at any game or amusement" bit. This means that any person who plays Ingress in a cemetery in Tennessee, even if all they do is walk in, claim a portal on their phone silently and walk out (or hell even if they happened to claim a portal while they were visiting a grave) or kids playing hide and go seek in a cemetery are guilty of felonies in Tennessee. I think most people would find this a bit draconian, regardless of what your opinion of playing Ingress in cemeteries is (and it's not in any way dispruptive, it's about equivalent to someone walking into a cemetery and sending a text message. Playing Ingress looks like texting.)

Then there's this example.

Now while such laws are quite common, most states have safeguards to prevent this sort of thing from happening, such as putting up warning signs in all stores that sell cold medicine (this is the case in Minnesota) or requiring ID or tracking such purchases made on a credit card and not allowing further purchases if someone hits the limit. Indiana doesn't do any of this. So it's quite clear the Indiana law is quite poorly designed, and victimized a woman completely innocent of what it's targeting.

And then there's this: http://reason.com/archives/2007/11/01/persecuted-pills

A man was tried for possessing drugs he had a prescription for, with the prosecutor outright saying "there is no prescription defense" under Florida law. Seriously. Now even if that's technically true, then it means the Florida law is idiotic, badly written and it does no one any favors to uphold it.

[Deus Naturae]

Badger, you seem to be under the impression that "The Law" isn't itself a product of personal and individual values. That strikes me as obviously untrue.

Also, jury nullification isn't illegal. Aside from the obvious fact that there is no statue outlawing it, it has a long precedent in American jurisprudence and English Common Law. You protest that an individual is unfit to contradict decisions already made by the court system, yet the court system itself had upheld the right of jury nullification again and again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, by opposing the right of jury nullification, you yourself are contradicting the established opinions of the judicial system and are guilty of exactly what you accuse nullifiers of.

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

Perfect example just arose: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=207693.0

[Thunderbird is the word]

In favor of it, a good way of overturning draconian laws.

[Adam Griffin]

The NH House just passed a bill that says jurors must be informed of jury nullification.

[SingingAnalyst]

Absolutely I'd favor it. If a small-built 18 yo male is on trial for possession, and his punishment implies exposure to predators behind bars, I'd practice jury nullification in a heartbeat.

[Famous Mortimer]

Get rid of the jury system in its current form. Create a new system of full time professional jurors.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Get rid of the jury system in its current form. Create a new system of full time professional jurors.

In certain areas of civil law, where technical distinctions not commonly discernable by those with pre-existing knowledge of the topic, replacing the right to a jury trial makes sense. But for criminal law, absolutely not. A criminal law that is so complicated that average citizens can't comprehend what is alleged to be the offence is a bad law.

[Famous Mortimer]

Get rid of the jury system in its current form. Create a new system of full time professional jurors.

In certain areas of civil law, where technical distinctions not commonly discernable by those with pre-existing knowledge of the topic, replacing the right to a jury trial makes sense. But for criminal law, absolutely not. A criminal law that is so complicated that average citizens can't comprehend what is alleged to be the offence is a bad law.

It's not a matter of it being complicated. Having trained jurors would actually make the system SIMPLER. Not only would it removed the need for jury selection, it would remove the need for sequestering.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Get rid of the jury system in its current form. Create a new system of full time professional jurors.

In certain areas of civil law, where technical distinctions not commonly discernable by those with pre-existing knowledge of the topic, replacing the right to a jury trial makes sense. But for criminal law, absolutely not. A criminal law that is so complicated that average citizens can't comprehend what is alleged to be the offence is a bad law.

It's not a matter of it being complicated. Having trained jurors would actually make the system SIMPLER. Not only would it removed the need for jury selection, it would remove the need for sequestering.

Trained to do what? Pay attention to what our gallant and well meaning prosecutors tell you? And if you don't, we'll find someone else to do your job? Juries made up of the common people can serve as an important check on government overreach.