hold on a second..isn't the whole point of a jury to decide whether or not to apply a stupid rule? ie. human oversight? what are you trying to game exactly? if the jury can't come to a consensus, and you are exercising your facility to go against that consensus, then everything's worked out, right?
No the point of the jury is to decide if a person is innocent/guilty of the law. But because of an obvious outcome of 2 specific laws (you cannot be tried for the same crime twice, and jurors cannot be held accountable for their verdict) a verdict against the evidence can therefor override the existing law. Think of the 3 laws of robotics in the movie IROBOT.
By design, a juror could disagree with the consensus, against evidence, and the person on trial would not be found guilty of the law? Every jury member has this power over the outcome of a trial, right?
"A hung jury or deadlocked jury is a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after extended deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or supermajority.
This situation can occur only in common law legal system, because civil law systems either do not use juries at all or provide that the defendant is automatically acquitted if the majority or supermajority required for conviction is not reached during a single, solemn vote"
Ok, so the power of a juror is pretty strong. In a civil case they may not have as much sway as there's a lower threshold for conviction. But in a common law case each juror can end the trial if they choose.
Common law trials I think are called "Trial by Jury" Where as civil law trials are called "Jury Trials". I think in administrative courts (civil courts, courts not of record) its my understanding that they can pretty much do whatever they want, which includes dismiss jurors for any reason or nullify jury judgements. I could be wrong though.
If you are interested in this look at karl lentz on youtube, he explains this stuff pretty good.
No the point of the jury is to decide if a person is innocent/guilty of the law.
^ VIOLATION of the law, actually.
But it goes beyond that: The Jury legally has the right, the duty and the power to judge the law itself, and whether it would be just to apply the law in the case before them.
Hypothetical example:
A motel catches fire in the small town of Bible Jesus, Oklahoma. In the mayhem, patrons of the motel are forced to flee for their lives - including one woman who runs from her room - choking and gasping from the smoke - TOTALLY NAKED!!!!
All of this is caught ON VIDEO by both surveillance and local news cameras. There is no question that the woman was NEKKID!
Now, the town of Bible Jesus is a VERY "moral", God fearing community, and they have VERY strict laws with regard to public nudity, so naturally, the NEKKID woman is charged with pubic indecency, and because there were minors present on the scene, the (god fearing) prosecutors have gone full tilt, charging her with a SEX CRIME!.
Now, there is NO QUESTION that the "evil hussy" that ran from the burning motel is GUILTY of the crime of pubic indecency: The raging nipples and slightly scorched pubic hairs of this voluptuous vixen were caught on video, and countless red-faced God-fearing citizens saw the SHAME that she brought on the community.
How can the jurors NOT find her guilty?
If ONE Juror holds out, there is the strong possibility of a mistrial being declared, and it all starts over. HOWEVER, if that ONE JUROR informs the OTHER jurors of their powers of NULLIFICATION, they can ALL vote "not guilty" with a clear conscience, and that EVIL HUSSY will walk free.
You're on a jury and you're pushing for jury nullification, it works. But now the judge knows you and all of the other jurors know about it. Never again to be on a jury.
OR
You're on a jury, you wish to push jury nullification by convincing the other jurors that the law is outdated/ignorant without mentioning jury nullification. The judge thinks its an honest gesture and non is the wiser. Next jury duty please.
Yes, all you could really do IN AN EXTREMELY HYPOTHETICAL CASE. would insist that the person is guilty/innocent regardless of the evidence because you think the law is stupid and or outdated, do not mention JN even to other jurors or the case could be thrown out/retried.
No, don't tell ANYONE about jury nullification. Do not even hint that you KNOW about it, or the judge and prosecutor will pull you from the jury immediately.
And don't listen to those that are telling you that jury nullification is illegal. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.
The duty of the jury is NOT only to decide whether the facts of the case (as the judge allows) warrants conviction, but to JUDGE THE LAW ITSELF, and whether applying the law in question would be just in the case presented before them.
Judges and prosecutors HATE jury nullification because if jurors know the scope of their power and their duty, it fucks with their God Powers.
• Inform potential jurors of their traditional, legal authority to refuse to enforce unjust laws
• Inform potential jurors that they cannot be required to check their consciences at the courthouse door
• Inform potential jurors that they cannot be punished for their verdicts
• Inform everyone that juror veto—jury nullification—is a peaceful way to protect human rights against corrupt politicians and government tyranny
Remember: Do not mention this topic to ANYONE, including fellow jurors - UNTIL you are in the deliberation room. Maybe then you can share this brochure with them:
Again, no one said it is ILLEGAL. Conspiring to inform other jurors of it IS jury tampering.
"To those who claim it is illegal: Can you imagine a court trying to prosecute a Jury Nullification case? IN FRONT OF A JURY?"
Again jury nullification is NOT illegal, it is jury TAMPERING that would be charged.
EDIT sorry forgot this one too
"Remember: Do not mention this topic to ANYONE, including fellow jurors - UNTIL you are in the deliberation room. Maybe then you can share this brochure with them:"
Even in the deliberation room telling other jurors of jury nullification is still tampering, you cannot be CONVICTED of it of course because it relies on the testimony of other jurors (not possible). But you will be barred from jury duty therefor eliminating another intelligent person that could use this power.
Again jury nullification is NOT illegal, it is jury TAMPERING that would be charged.
Not so. The purpose of deliberations is to allow members of the jury to discuss ALL ASPECTS of the evidence of the case before them, AND THE LAW.
Nothing in your earlier cite, or anything I have seen elsewhere, indicates that anyone has ever been charged with jury tampering for informing fellow jurors of their rights, responsibilities and POWERS regarding jury nullification.
Even in the deliberation room telling other jurors of jury nullification is still tampering, you cannot be CONVICTED of it of course because it relies on the testimony of other jurors (not possible). But you will be barred from jury duty therefor eliminating another intelligent person that could use this power.
Don't be daft. Jurors are not required to divulge the reasoning that preceded the verdict they have rendered.
The Jury is the ultimate judge of the law, and whether it should be applied in the case before them.
The exclusion of nullifiers also played a key role in enforcing federal laws against bigamy and polygamy in the Utah Territory. In 1880, the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional the dismissal of jurors who believed polygamy was ordained by God (Miles v United States, 103 U.S. 304 [1880]). In 1882 Congress barred those who practiced, or who even “believed in the rightfulness of” adultery, bigamy, concubinage, or polygamy from serving as jurors in prosecutions for this conduct, a move that finally allowed the federal government to crush polygamy and pave the way for statehood for Utah (King 1998; Bressler 2011).Today, judges and prosecutors continue to cull from juries those who, like Quakers, Mormons, and Klan members in earlier eras, openly admit they may refuse to convict a defendant who is guilty under the law (LaFave et al. 2007, 2014).
Not only before trial but also during trial, judges have dismissed jurors who have objected to the law. Recent cases include the removal of jurors who disagreed with the crime or its sentence, including drug possession and statutory rape (LaFave et al. 2007, 2014). In 1997, endorsing the constitutionality of dismissing hold-out nullifiers, the Second Circuit categorically rejected “the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent.” The court cautioned that exclusion must be limited to cases in which no substantial possibility exists that the juror is basing his or her decision on the sufficiency of the evidence (United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 [2d Cir. 1997], p. 614). For several years, California courts used a pattern instruction that told jurors to immediately advise the judge if “any juror refuses to deliberate or expresses an intention to disregard the law or to decide the case based on penalty or punishment, or any improper basis.” The state’s high court eventually disapproved this pattern instruction, concluding that although the instruction violated no constitutional safeguard, it could chill candid deliberations (People v. Rogers, 304 P.3d 124 [Cal. 2013], pp. 153–154).
In 1882 Congress barred those who practiced, or who even “believed in the rightfulness of” adultery, bigamy, concubinage, or polygamy from serving as jurors in prosecutions for this conduct, a move that finally allowed the federal government to crush polygamy and pave the way for statehood for Utah
Just imagine if the case - in 1880 - had been judging GAY MARRIAGE, which the Supreme Court has now FORCED Utah to embrace...
Jurors have the right and duty to judge the law.
For several years, California courts used a pattern instruction that told jurors to immediately advise the judge if “any juror refuses to deliberate or expresses an intention to disregard the law or to decide the case based on penalty or punishment, or any improper basis.” The state’s high court eventually disapproved this pattern instruction, concluding that although the instruction violated no constitutional safeguard, it could chill candid deliberations (People v. Rogers, 304 P.3d 124 [Cal. 2013], pp. 153–154).
Apparently we are in agreement that jury nullification is both a right and a duty.
Where we differ is in the application of that right/duty.
You insist that it must be done covertly - that the AWARE juror should simply "hold out", not informing his fellows, who are in all likelihood UNAWARE of that right/duty.
Why should they not be aware of such a solemn right/duty?
Your prescribed method leaves the case open for mistrial - meaning that the accused may well be retried and convicted by the next batch of jurors - NONE of whom will likely be aware of the power of nullification.
My prescribed method is far more likely to result in a NOT GUILTY verdict, preventing the accused from being retried, while making other jurors aware of the power that the law has vested in them.
While you claim to favor the right of nullification, you effectively argue against its being practiced.
Either stand on your moral convictions, or kneel before tyranny, friend.
Jury nullification isn't something juries are allowed to do. It's just a consequence of the fact that, if a jury can be punished for not coming to the correct judgement, then a jury can be punished for not coming to the "correct" judgement, which would make the use of a jury pointless. It wouldn't really be the jury making the decision, it would be whomever decides whether the jury made the correct decision that makes the decision. So if the jury votes "not guilty," then the person is not guilty, regardless of whether anyone else thinks that decision makes any sense or not.
D. Prosecuting Holdout Jurors and Nullification Advocates
Prosecutors have attempted to control nullification by prosecuting jurors and potential jurors who commit perjury, bribery, or other criminal offenses in connection with their service as jurors (King 1998). As the Supreme Court explained in Clark v. United States, affirming the perjury conviction of a juror who lied during voir dire to get on the jury and later held out for acquittal, a juror punished for perjury “has not been held to answer for any verdict that she has rendered” (Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1 [1933], p. 17). Criminal activity by a juror must be established with evidence other than the testimony of the other jurors, however, because intruding into jury deliberations creates a risk of jury intimidation. This rule creates a significant barrier to prosecuting jurors. For example, in the mid-1990s, after a Colorado prosecutor charged a juror who had held out for acquittal in a drug case with obstruction of justice because she had failed to disclose her prior arrest for drug possession and her support of marijuana legalization, the conviction was overturned because the prosecutor had relied on the testimony of other jurors (Reichelt 2007).
Prosecutors have also targeted for prosecution people who attempt to inform jurors that no matter what the judge says, they can acquit if they think justice requires it (King 1998). Recently, a federal judge dismissed a jury tampering charge against a retired professor who stood outside a courthouse distributing pamphlets that encouraged jurors to acquit if they disagreed with the law. The defendant admitted that he hoped some of those receiving his information were jurors, but the judge explained that the crime of jury tampering requires an effort to influence a juror in a particular case and did not reach the defendant’s conduct (Weiser 2012).
No, you're right no one in THAT example was convicted. Its fairly easy to use wording to "prove" your intent was not to persuade the jury. Im not trying to obfuscate jury nullification, i love it. But i do NOT want to see people be charged with jury tampering because they unwittingly said the wrong thing. Or have an intelligent person that knows about jury nullification to be barred from further duty.
You are either blind or being willfully ignorant to what im saying. Repeatedly i have said to keep them in the jury pool to continue to use jury nullification.
You are full of shit btw. It maybe illegal in code, but codes are not law, the have the force of law. True law is in the common realm. and codes dont trump rights to nullify decisions by jury.
No, im right.. You obviously dont understand the point of your link. OR how it actually works. Its never against the law to know of jury nullification, but op is conspiring to alert other jurors of it therefor committing jury tampering.
No, it is not jury tampering for one juror to inform other members of the same jury as to their rights, powers and responsibility under the law. ESPECIALLY not when all evidence has been heard, and the jury is in deliberation.
Quoting from your link:
C. Instructions that Omit or Prohibit Nullification
"Appellate courts have also upheld as constitutional rulings by trial judges refusing to instruct a jury about its nullification power."
This acknowledges that jurors have the POWER of nullification - a legitimate and legal power.
Again, one member of a given jury informing his fellows of their right and power is NOT "jury tampering", and OP's queries here on the matter could in no way be construed as "conspiracy".
"Soooo- if I just happened to share this video with my new fb friends {ahem} fellow jurors tomorrow"
"Appellate courts"
AGAIN for the 4th? 5th? time JURY NULLIFICATION IS NOT ILLEGAL.
I AM NOT ARGUING THAT WITH YOU but jury tampering is... and going about it the way you are talking about will remove any person that knows about jury nullification from the jury pool forever simple as that
It's called jury nullification. Basically, you have every right to deliver a not guilty verdict as a way of nullifying laws you disagree with. If I was you, I'd vote not guilty in anything other than a crime which has an actual victim.
Honestly, the best thing you can do if you are on the jury, is to listen and pay attention. Yes, shmury shmulification is well within your power. However, you need to ask yourself what do you consider a crime, in your heart of hearts. Dont say "not guilty" just to stick it to the man. What if you go and its a dude that got caught in the act raping a kid? Do you want to say "not guilty" then? Or...what if its somebody that got caught with a little weed (assuming you are in a prohibition state), or some lame as parking violation kinda bullshit? You be the judge, its kinda the whole point
58 comments
5 AccurateLinguist 2016-10-26
hold on a second..isn't the whole point of a jury to decide whether or not to apply a stupid rule? ie. human oversight? what are you trying to game exactly? if the jury can't come to a consensus, and you are exercising your facility to go against that consensus, then everything's worked out, right?
or is your goal to change the laws themselves?
1 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
No the point of the jury is to decide if a person is innocent/guilty of the law. But because of an obvious outcome of 2 specific laws (you cannot be tried for the same crime twice, and jurors cannot be held accountable for their verdict) a verdict against the evidence can therefor override the existing law. Think of the 3 laws of robotics in the movie IROBOT.
2 AccurateLinguist 2016-10-26
Very clean explanation, thanks.
By design, a juror could disagree with the consensus, against evidence, and the person on trial would not be found guilty of the law? Every jury member has this power over the outcome of a trial, right?
1 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
Im not sure how to answer this questions...
"A hung jury or deadlocked jury is a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after extended deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or supermajority.
This situation can occur only in common law legal system, because civil law systems either do not use juries at all or provide that the defendant is automatically acquitted if the majority or supermajority required for conviction is not reached during a single, solemn vote"
1 AccurateLinguist 2016-10-26
Ok, so the power of a juror is pretty strong. In a civil case they may not have as much sway as there's a lower threshold for conviction. But in a common law case each juror can end the trial if they choose.
1 trinsic-paridiom 2016-10-26
Common law trials I think are called "Trial by Jury" Where as civil law trials are called "Jury Trials". I think in administrative courts (civil courts, courts not of record) its my understanding that they can pretty much do whatever they want, which includes dismiss jurors for any reason or nullify jury judgements. I could be wrong though.
If you are interested in this look at karl lentz on youtube, he explains this stuff pretty good.
1 Amos_Quito 2016-10-26
^ VIOLATION of the law, actually.
But it goes beyond that: The Jury legally has the right, the duty and the power to judge the law itself, and whether it would be just to apply the law in the case before them.
Hypothetical example:
A motel catches fire in the small town of Bible Jesus, Oklahoma. In the mayhem, patrons of the motel are forced to flee for their lives - including one woman who runs from her room - choking and gasping from the smoke - TOTALLY NAKED!!!!
All of this is caught ON VIDEO by both surveillance and local news cameras. There is no question that the woman was NEKKID!
Now, the town of Bible Jesus is a VERY "moral", God fearing community, and they have VERY strict laws with regard to public nudity, so naturally, the NEKKID woman is charged with pubic indecency, and because there were minors present on the scene, the (god fearing) prosecutors have gone full tilt, charging her with a SEX CRIME!.
Now, there is NO QUESTION that the "evil hussy" that ran from the burning motel is GUILTY of the crime of pubic indecency: The raging nipples and slightly scorched pubic hairs of this voluptuous vixen were caught on video, and countless red-faced God-fearing citizens saw the SHAME that she brought on the community.
How can the jurors NOT find her guilty?
If ONE Juror holds out, there is the strong possibility of a mistrial being declared, and it all starts over. HOWEVER, if that ONE JUROR informs the OTHER jurors of their powers of NULLIFICATION, they can ALL vote "not guilty" with a clear conscience, and that EVIL HUSSY will walk free.
What should they do?
1 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
Here lets do this.
You're on a jury and you're pushing for jury nullification, it works. But now the judge knows you and all of the other jurors know about it. Never again to be on a jury.
OR
You're on a jury, you wish to push jury nullification by convincing the other jurors that the law is outdated/ignorant without mentioning jury nullification. The judge thinks its an honest gesture and non is the wiser. Next jury duty please.
3 Johnny-Skitzo 2016-10-26
Look up Jury Nullification. I think that's what it's called
4 Putin_loves_cats 2016-10-26
Yes, but be careful to not recommend. Fun fact, it's actually against the law to talk about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ
3 Johnny-Skitzo 2016-10-26
What the actual fuck? It's illegal to talk about a fucking law?
1 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
It is NOT an actual law... It is an obvious outcome of 2 specific laws... Think of the 3 laws of robotics in the movie IROBOT.
3 OneTypoComment 2016-10-26
It's a citizen's primary way to affect the laws we live under, and you can't have the peasants holding any power now can you?
2 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
Thats the basic principle behind why so many judges hate it. If a jury holds the power to enforce a law, what the hell do we need a judge for.
3 no1113 2016-10-26
We don't. That's the point.
Of course they don't want us to know that though...
1 trinsic-paridiom 2016-10-26
My understanding is the the point of justices, is to be an mediator under the law, and not a arbitrator of the law.
1 Johnny-Skitzo 2016-10-26
Ahh. So when should I expect the boys in blue?
1 [deleted] 2016-10-26
[deleted]
3 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
Yes, all you could really do IN AN EXTREMELY HYPOTHETICAL CASE. would insist that the person is guilty/innocent regardless of the evidence because you think the law is stupid and or outdated, do not mention JN even to other jurors or the case could be thrown out/retried.
2 Amos_Quito 2016-10-26
No, don't tell ANYONE about jury nullification. Do not even hint that you KNOW about it, or the judge and prosecutor will pull you from the jury immediately.
And don't listen to those that are telling you that jury nullification is illegal. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.
The duty of the jury is NOT only to decide whether the facts of the case (as the judge allows) warrants conviction, but to JUDGE THE LAW ITSELF, and whether applying the law in question would be just in the case presented before them.
Judges and prosecutors HATE jury nullification because if jurors know the scope of their power and their duty, it fucks with their God Powers.
Read more on the topic here: Fully Informed Jury Association
Remember: Do not mention this topic to ANYONE, including fellow jurors - UNTIL you are in the deliberation room. Maybe then you can share this brochure with them:
http://fija.org/docs/BR_2010_QandA_primer.pdf
To those who claim it is illegal: Can you imagine a court trying to prosecute a Jury Nullification case? IN FRONT OF A JURY?
-1 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
Again, no one said it is ILLEGAL. Conspiring to inform other jurors of it IS jury tampering.
"To those who claim it is illegal: Can you imagine a court trying to prosecute a Jury Nullification case? IN FRONT OF A JURY?"
Again jury nullification is NOT illegal, it is jury TAMPERING that would be charged.
EDIT sorry forgot this one too
"Remember: Do not mention this topic to ANYONE, including fellow jurors - UNTIL you are in the deliberation room. Maybe then you can share this brochure with them:"
Even in the deliberation room telling other jurors of jury nullification is still tampering, you cannot be CONVICTED of it of course because it relies on the testimony of other jurors (not possible). But you will be barred from jury duty therefor eliminating another intelligent person that could use this power.
0 Amos_Quito 2016-10-26
Not so. The purpose of deliberations is to allow members of the jury to discuss ALL ASPECTS of the evidence of the case before them, AND THE LAW.
Nothing in your earlier cite, or anything I have seen elsewhere, indicates that anyone has ever been charged with jury tampering for informing fellow jurors of their rights, responsibilities and POWERS regarding jury nullification.
Don't be daft. Jurors are not required to divulge the reasoning that preceded the verdict they have rendered.
The Jury is the ultimate judge of the law, and whether it should be applied in the case before them.
0 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
The exclusion of nullifiers also played a key role in enforcing federal laws against bigamy and polygamy in the Utah Territory. In 1880, the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional the dismissal of jurors who believed polygamy was ordained by God (Miles v United States, 103 U.S. 304 [1880]). In 1882 Congress barred those who practiced, or who even “believed in the rightfulness of” adultery, bigamy, concubinage, or polygamy from serving as jurors in prosecutions for this conduct, a move that finally allowed the federal government to crush polygamy and pave the way for statehood for Utah (King 1998; Bressler 2011).Today, judges and prosecutors continue to cull from juries those who, like Quakers, Mormons, and Klan members in earlier eras, openly admit they may refuse to convict a defendant who is guilty under the law (LaFave et al. 2007, 2014).
Not only before trial but also during trial, judges have dismissed jurors who have objected to the law. Recent cases include the removal of jurors who disagreed with the crime or its sentence, including drug possession and statutory rape (LaFave et al. 2007, 2014). In 1997, endorsing the constitutionality of dismissing hold-out nullifiers, the Second Circuit categorically rejected “the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent.” The court cautioned that exclusion must be limited to cases in which no substantial possibility exists that the juror is basing his or her decision on the sufficiency of the evidence (United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 [2d Cir. 1997], p. 614). For several years, California courts used a pattern instruction that told jurors to immediately advise the judge if “any juror refuses to deliberate or expresses an intention to disregard the law or to decide the case based on penalty or punishment, or any improper basis.” The state’s high court eventually disapproved this pattern instruction, concluding that although the instruction violated no constitutional safeguard, it could chill candid deliberations (People v. Rogers, 304 P.3d 124 [Cal. 2013], pp. 153–154).
0 Amos_Quito 2016-10-26
Just imagine if the case - in 1880 - had been judging GAY MARRIAGE, which the Supreme Court has now FORCED Utah to embrace...
Jurors have the right and duty to judge the law.
Well, that last part says it all.
Doesn't it?
2 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
Yes, they are aware they can bait you into admitting to it. But ya know "they probably wont" because its not illegal.
Look i want to end this-
MY AGENDA = Get people to use jury nullification effectively, quietly, and repeatedly.
Your agenda = Get people to use jury nullification by being as open as possible about it but only that one time.
Am i wrong?
-1 Amos_Quito 2016-10-26
Apparently we are in agreement that jury nullification is both a right and a duty.
Where we differ is in the application of that right/duty.
You insist that it must be done covertly - that the AWARE juror should simply "hold out", not informing his fellows, who are in all likelihood UNAWARE of that right/duty.
Why should they not be aware of such a solemn right/duty?
Your prescribed method leaves the case open for mistrial - meaning that the accused may well be retried and convicted by the next batch of jurors - NONE of whom will likely be aware of the power of nullification.
My prescribed method is far more likely to result in a NOT GUILTY verdict, preventing the accused from being retried, while making other jurors aware of the power that the law has vested in them.
While you claim to favor the right of nullification, you effectively argue against its being practiced.
Either stand on your moral convictions, or kneel before tyranny, friend.
1 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
OK willfully ignorant is all you had to say. Thank you for your time.
0 Amos_Quito 2016-10-26
???
"Would you rather die on your feet, or live on your knees"?, the saying goes...
But you have presented a third choice: DIE ON YOUR KNEES.
You're a hero to someone somewhere, I'm sure.
1 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
If you truly need to take this to the extreme of life or death, fine.
You cant teach a man to fish, if you're dead.
1 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
You cant save a drowning man if you cant swim
1 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
You cant lead a horse to water with no compass
1 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
are we done spouting dribble yet?
1 Johnny-Skitzo 2016-10-26
Apparently so
3 pby1000 2016-10-26
Yes
-1 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
You just realized you fucked this person over right? It is illegal to conspire to use jury nullification.
3 [deleted] 2016-10-26
[deleted]
0 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
Yes you did. "There's a clause I can use to find people Not Guilty for stupid-ass laws"
0 Patroplate 2016-10-26
Jury nullification isn't something juries are allowed to do. It's just a consequence of the fact that, if a jury can be punished for not coming to the correct judgement, then a jury can be punished for not coming to the "correct" judgement, which would make the use of a jury pointless. It wouldn't really be the jury making the decision, it would be whomever decides whether the jury made the correct decision that makes the decision. So if the jury votes "not guilty," then the person is not guilty, regardless of whether anyone else thinks that decision makes any sense or not.
2 Johnny-Skitzo 2016-10-26
Why?
1 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
D. Prosecuting Holdout Jurors and Nullification Advocates
Prosecutors have attempted to control nullification by prosecuting jurors and potential jurors who commit perjury, bribery, or other criminal offenses in connection with their service as jurors (King 1998). As the Supreme Court explained in Clark v. United States, affirming the perjury conviction of a juror who lied during voir dire to get on the jury and later held out for acquittal, a juror punished for perjury “has not been held to answer for any verdict that she has rendered” (Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1 [1933], p. 17). Criminal activity by a juror must be established with evidence other than the testimony of the other jurors, however, because intruding into jury deliberations creates a risk of jury intimidation. This rule creates a significant barrier to prosecuting jurors. For example, in the mid-1990s, after a Colorado prosecutor charged a juror who had held out for acquittal in a drug case with obstruction of justice because she had failed to disclose her prior arrest for drug possession and her support of marijuana legalization, the conviction was overturned because the prosecutor had relied on the testimony of other jurors (Reichelt 2007).
Prosecutors have also targeted for prosecution people who attempt to inform jurors that no matter what the judge says, they can acquit if they think justice requires it (King 1998). Recently, a federal judge dismissed a jury tampering charge against a retired professor who stood outside a courthouse distributing pamphlets that encouraged jurors to acquit if they disagreed with the law. The defendant admitted that he hoped some of those receiving his information were jurors, but the judge explained that the crime of jury tampering requires an effort to influence a juror in a particular case and did not reach the defendant’s conduct (Weiser 2012).
1 Johnny-Skitzo 2016-10-26
I plead the Clinton Defence
1 Amos_Quito 2016-10-26
Nothing in the above shows that anyone has ever been convicted in the US for promoting or practicing jury nullification.
1 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
No, you're right no one in THAT example was convicted. Its fairly easy to use wording to "prove" your intent was not to persuade the jury. Im not trying to obfuscate jury nullification, i love it. But i do NOT want to see people be charged with jury tampering because they unwittingly said the wrong thing. Or have an intelligent person that knows about jury nullification to be barred from further duty.
1 Amos_Quito 2016-10-26
If the discussion takes place in deliberation, they won't be, because they can't be.
Don't scare people into submitting to tyranny.
1 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
You are either blind or being willfully ignorant to what im saying. Repeatedly i have said to keep them in the jury pool to continue to use jury nullification.
2 Amos_Quito 2016-10-26
BULLSHIT.
2 trinsic-paridiom 2016-10-26
You are full of shit btw. It maybe illegal in code, but codes are not law, the have the force of law. True law is in the common realm. and codes dont trump rights to nullify decisions by jury.
0 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
No, im right.. You obviously dont understand the point of your link. OR how it actually works. Its never against the law to know of jury nullification, but op is conspiring to alert other jurors of it therefor committing jury tampering. also here read http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935383.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935383-e-103
1 Amos_Quito 2016-10-26
No, it is not jury tampering for one juror to inform other members of the same jury as to their rights, powers and responsibility under the law. ESPECIALLY not when all evidence has been heard, and the jury is in deliberation.
Quoting from your link:
C. Instructions that Omit or Prohibit Nullification
This acknowledges that jurors have the POWER of nullification - a legitimate and legal power.
Again, one member of a given jury informing his fellows of their right and power is NOT "jury tampering", and OP's queries here on the matter could in no way be construed as "conspiracy".
1 ChainedNmaimed 2016-10-26
"Soooo- if I just happened to share this video with my new fb friends {ahem} fellow jurors tomorrow"
"Appellate courts"
AGAIN for the 4th? 5th? time JURY NULLIFICATION IS NOT ILLEGAL. I AM NOT ARGUING THAT WITH YOU but jury tampering is... and going about it the way you are talking about will remove any person that knows about jury nullification from the jury pool forever simple as that
1 trinsic-paridiom 2016-10-26
ohh, yeah good point.
2 Anapepper3 2016-10-26
Just walk in there and say "They're guilty, lock them up" that will get you dismissed pronto.
1 [deleted] 2016-10-26
Ask Hillary's lawyers.
1 Beneficial1 2016-10-26
Reasonable doubt. That's what it's called.
1 jb-1984 2016-10-26
I wore my Ayn Rand t-shirt last time I got called in, and was the 2nd person dismissed on a murder trial.
2 no1113 2016-10-26
I wore a Harley Davidson shirt on one occasion that said "Filthy Pig" on it in big, bold letters, and that did it for me. lol
1 Lupusmon 2016-10-26
Watch - 12 angry men. 1 juror against the other 11.
1 Time2SinTime2Live 2016-10-26
Tell them you can't be a juror as your heavily occupied sifting through leaked HRC emails.
You will be dismissed.
1 zeropoint357 2016-10-26
It's called jury nullification. Basically, you have every right to deliver a not guilty verdict as a way of nullifying laws you disagree with. If I was you, I'd vote not guilty in anything other than a crime which has an actual victim.
1 meantartarsauce 2016-10-26
Honestly, the best thing you can do if you are on the jury, is to listen and pay attention. Yes, shmury shmulification is well within your power. However, you need to ask yourself what do you consider a crime, in your heart of hearts. Dont say "not guilty" just to stick it to the man. What if you go and its a dude that got caught in the act raping a kid? Do you want to say "not guilty" then? Or...what if its somebody that got caught with a little weed (assuming you are in a prohibition state), or some lame as parking violation kinda bullshit? You be the judge, its kinda the whole point