How difficult is jury selection to avoid nullification?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For example in California 46% of voters voted to legalize marijuana. This means in any jury pool you probably have 46% on average that think it should be legal (this is obviously far higher if it's in the Bay Area.) It takes 1/12, aka 8.3333333...%, to hang. Now you can obviously get the considered pool for people who'll uphold the law to higher than 54%, but getting it to above 91% seems incredibly difficult. I was thinking about how with it taking only one juror to hang how difficult it must be to get a conviction for any supposed victimless crime. It gets even worse when you consider there are cases where potential jurors don't even necessarily oppose the law but won't convict out of fear of mandatory minimum sentences that are seen as too severe, and as a result there have been cases of acquittals or convictions only of a far more mild charge because jurors don't want to throw someone in jail for five years over a bag of cocaine or whatever. Since this is often used as an argument against mandatory minimum sentences it makes me think about how even more difficult this must be...

[Franzl]

Not everyone that voted to legalize marijuana would react the way you seem to expect them to.

[Torie]

It depends where you hang out. If you are tried for a DUI in Newport Beach, the odds are about 95% that you will be bagged. If you are tried in Hermosa Beach, the odds are about 50-50 that you will beat the rap - due to something very close to jury nullification. Jury nullification in some venues does indeed happen early and often.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not everyone that voted to legalize marijuana would react the way you seem to expect them to.

But I'm sure at least 8% of the population would.

All I know is there no way I could sleep at night sending a non-violent guy who made money selling pot to college students away for five years, "upholding the law" or whatever be damned.

[tpfkaw]

Ah.  You have stumbled upon an important point.  Most people who say they support marijuana legalization are Democrats, which generally means they worship any and all authority, and do exactly as they are told, like good little ducklings.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ah.  You have stumbled upon an important point.  Most people who say they support marijuana legalization are Democrats, which generally means they worship any and all authority, and do exactly as they are told, like good little ducklings.

(Hate to resort to Libertas-style debating, but it's fair game against something this ridiculous from someone who considered Libertas a great poster anyway.)

And yes the Republicans are soooooooo standing against authority. It's not like the Republicans weren't accusing anyone of criticizing the President or military from 2001-2009 as being traitors. No they truly showed discontent with Bush, while most Democrats truly loved him. The Democrats sure cooperated with authority at NYC 2004, here in 2008 and the Seattle WTO protests as well.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Ah.  You have stumbled upon an important point.  Most people who say they support marijuana legalization are Democrats, which generally means they worship any and all authority, and do exactly as they are told, like good little ducklings.

(Hate to resort to Libertas-style debating, but it's fair game against something this ridiculous from someone who considered Libertas a great poster anyway.)

And yes the Republicans are soooooooo standing against authority. It's not like the Republicans weren't accusing anyone of criticizing the President or military from 2001-2009 as being traitors. No they truly showed discontent with Bush, while most Democrats truly loved him. The Democrats sure cooperated with authority at NYC 2004, here in 2008 and the Seattle WTO protests as well.

     The issue is that basically everyone loves authority of some sort. Some folks like authority more than others, but the notion that any one group has a monopoly on loving authority has no basis in reality.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Not everyone that voted to legalize marijuana would react the way you seem to expect them to.

Yeah... I'm strongly in favor of legalizing marijuana, but I'd still convict somebody if I served on a jury and I thought the evidence was there to convict them of possession (or whatever marijuana-related crime it was).

[Badger]

Like Torie said, its chances vary wildly from locale to locale, and even more depends on the individual jurors called. Even the most conservative places have supporters of legalizing mj for example. With 12 (or 8 for misdemeanors, in Ohio at least) jurors serving, one can have someone with a wild hare leading to jury nullification on almost any issue, be it drunk driving, spousal abuse, whatever.

The key is close questioning. Get the jurors to talk to you more than listen to you. Don't accept boilerplate "I'd try to be fair" answers at face value. Dig politely but firmly to get them to reveal their thoughts without feeling pissed off or picked on. Humor, used in moderation, is often a good tool.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It seems like I would be unlikely to ever serve on a jury then.

[Badger]

It seems like I would be unlikely to ever serve on a jury then.

For anything? Not just a drug case? I would only expect that of certain anarcho-capitalist/borderline freemen militia type posters here, Zach, not you.

What's your thoughts here?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think my general attitude toward "law and order" and whatnot would shine through, even for a more serious crime. Would probably get me bounced from any pool before I'd be assigned to a case. Also keep in mind how brash and blunt I can be. You won't get "I try to be fair" type answers from me.

[beneficii]

I think my general attitude toward "law and order" and whatnot would shine through, even for a more serious crime. Would probably get me bounced from any pool before I'd be assigned to a case. Also keep in mind how brash and blunt I can be. You won't get "I try to be fair" type answers from me.

Your job is to determine guilt, not start with the assumption of guilt and think you have some moral obligation to hit them as hard as possible.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think my general attitude toward "law and order" and whatnot would shine through, even for a more serious crime. Would probably get me bounced from any pool before I'd be assigned to a case. Also keep in mind how brash and blunt I can be. You won't get "I try to be fair" type answers from me.

Your job is to determine guilt, not start with the assumption of guilt and think you have some moral obligation to hit them as hard as possible.

Actually in many cases I'd do the opposite. My refusal for example to convict anyone on marijuana or prostitution charges isn't based only on some "I don't mind those things and don't think they should be illegal so I'll just ignore the law" type of thinking but the fact that I'd have moral qualms about doing so. I'd be just as conscience-racked sentencing someone to jail for peacefully growing marijuana or running a non-abusive escort service as I would be for committing serious crimes which I wouldn't do even if I could be guaranteed to get away with it. Even for more serious drugs I wouldn't be happy with five years for a bag of cocaine type of stuff. Moving past even victimless crimes, there are issues such as draconian DUI sentences for people who weren't that dangerous and in some cases may not have even been driving, or a felony assault charge for taking a drunken swing at some asshole who was hitting on your wife or girlfriend sort of thing. I suppose Minnesota is perhaps one of the states that would be on the least issues for me being free of three strikes laws, the death penalty and draconian mandatory minimum sentences for most crimes, but nowhere is perfect.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here's something else I was wondering (which ties into what I said above), could one's attitude toward the law on certain things result in them being booted from the pool even if the crime doesn't relate to that.

For example some guy goes on during screening about how he hates the law and how stupid it is that marijuana is illegal, or conversely some teabagger type rants about how he hates the big bad government which wants to take his guns away. The case has nothing to do with marijuana or guns, but could such a person be deemed too untrustworthy in the system or whatnot then?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Here's something else I was wondering (which ties into what I said above), could one's attitude toward the law on certain things result in them being booted from the pool even if the crime doesn't relate to that.

Can't lawyers decide to not select people for whatever reason they want?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Here's something else I was wondering (which ties into what I said above), could one's attitude toward the law on certain things result in them being booted from the pool even if the crime doesn't relate to that.

Can't lawyers decide to not select people for whatever reason they want?

     Lawyers get a certain number of peremptory dismissals, where they don't have to give a reason for dismissing the person. They can use these however they want, though they can be challenged if the other side has reason to believe that they are being used in a racially discriminatory manner. That may only be California, though.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I can never serve on a jury...