Yeah, guys, if you ever get jury duty, explain this to everyone you can and try and get them laws changed.

Let me know how it goes for you.

Obviously sarcasm, but do not let a judge hear you telling prospective jurors about jury nullification. What you can say (it'll 100% get you out of jury duty in my experience) when the lawyers ask if you'll base your decision solely on the law is 'no'. They may ask you to explain. In that case you can say that if you don't believe that the law is right/good/moral/valid/whatever then you'd base your decision on what you believe to be right, even if the law was broken.

That is a brilliant way to get out of jury duty. Next time I am called, I am wearing a t-shirt that says: I ❤ Jury Nullification.

It's worked for me both times I've been called. 2 for 2 isn't bad.

Yeah I hoped most people would catch that it’s sarcasm. I would never ever bring it up unless I was in the position of having to hang a jury and say sorry but I disagree with this. I would never make it to a jury because of this haha.

And there's the conspiracy!

Huh?

One of the most important parts of a jury based justice system and if you even hint at your knowledge of it, you'll never make it to a jury.

Yeah. Sad too, since I consider myself impartial enough and educated enough to judge objectively. And odds are good I would not be facing any serious ethical dilemna's. A lot of people do in fact deserve arresting.

I did talk to my fellows jurors about that after we weren't selected .

I intend to.

Worst case, I choose to be the only one to nullify by going, "not guilty" repeatedly until they get the point, it becomes a hung jury. The state will probably try the poor sumbitch again, but that would be out of my hands at that point. There's only so much one can do.

I work in the court systems and in one bathroom I actually saw graffiti in a stall explaining jury nullification.

Where was that?

Michigan and he was convicted.

I take it that it wasnt brought before a jury

The article said the jury deliberated for 30 minutes.

Justice served? Ha

Also /s

Shame they didnt nullify it.

It would be great to see more posts about this. Even to have a more detailed one stickied.

If you're interested in this I also highly recommend having a look at some Dean Clifford videos.

And the same jury nullification will let the people who hunt down and murder said undeported immigrants, walk free.

You sure you want a world like this;

It's not a cure-all for the problems of society, but it gives citizens some small power to overturn oppression from the state.

Choosing between the tyranny of the majority, vs the tyranny of the state isn't exactly clean cut, but I'd rather choose the one that empowers citizens, rather than removing even more of their rights. The government thrives on making us feel like helpless, powerless drones, and we won't make any meaningful changes until people wake up from that delusion.

Just think your every move on the internet is tracked and sold to the highest bidder. Think about every click you make and how that reflects on you as a person. I've said it before, data is going to be the new money.

Here is a video that also explains Nullification. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ

Incredibly important post you have here! Twice during voire dire for jury selection my response indicated that I was well aware I have this right. Both of those times the prosecution and defense gave each other puzzled looks, ala, 'this one won't do what we want'. The right to serve on a jury, and to nullify when the facts call for it, are THE biggest foundations we have of democracy.You are correct that it's not popular in the courts. Thanks for this post!

I guess if you don't want to serve on a jury, asserting that right will pretty much guarantee you won't have to.

I hope you just forgot the /s ?? I wanted to be a juror. I didn't use either the term nullification, nor amendment in my answer. I also wasn't planning in advance that I would nullify-I hope noone nullifies without cause.

No sarcasm intended. Mentioning anything close to nullification, even cryptically, in front of the judge or council will absolutely guarantee they will strike you.

You would require a jury in order for this to happen. Immigration cases aren't handled in front of a jury, don't quote me on that though. So this wouldn't work in your immigration angle, unless there was a case brought up before a jury. But even then, the jury's refusal to apply the law in this case would only apply to that singular case. Juries can't repeal laws. Interesting concept though.

It's almost impossible to get a jury trial and exceedingly hard to have on that jury anyone who understands that they can make moral decisions, not just legal. Most jury believe they are there to determine if someone broke a law, not weather or not that law is just is justly applied.

If every single juror voted based on whether or not they think the law is justified, there would be no law. Part of a functioning legal system is that sometimes there's a law you don't like. Hell, maybe it's just you don't like the defendant. Or the prosecutor. Maybe the defendant did something you don't like to someone you really hate, so you're looking the other way on it.

Jury nullification is dangerous. For every person using it to say slavery is wrong, you have a person using it to say lynching is okay. It is not in itself a right, but rather a side effect of how juries work.

The governments power is derived from the consent of the governed. If people feel the need to overwhelmingly nullify a crime then obviously there is no consent.

Jury nullification is absolutely vital as a check on the government. Advocating against it makes you complicit to tyranny

If one person decides that they don't like black people so they won't convict a murder, that's not consent of the governed, that's a collapse of the rule of law. Juries only need a single person to vote not guilty and you've got a hung jury. Saying that I'm complicit to tyranny because I think the law is actually important is nuts.

So we should get rid of jurys all together right? We should just trust the government to dole out proper pubishments.

No, juries exist to decide whether or not someone broke the law. Not to decide whether or not the law should exist. The fact that jury nullification exists is an unintended product of a few protections that are afforded juries, not as an intentional citizen check against the legislative branch. Supporting jury nullifcation may, in your eyes, protect people from unjust laws, but it also has a terribly ugly side in which the law can simply not be applied to certain groups. Are you comfortable enough giving a tool to jurors to protect from legislative oppression if it means that the same tool can also be used to protect corrupt cops from facing justice for their crimes or to prevent racists from going to prison for murder in racist areas? Because that's how it's used, and I'm not okay with it.

So because its unintended it doesn't serve as a check on the government by the people? Crazy!

A jury deciding to nullify the law is no different than a jury saying not guilty. Its a citizens way to protect against tyranny. You really think it was just an accident they allowed it?

Wrong. King George made all kinds of laws. Jury of peers was created to ensure that laws and punishments fit real world and not just executed as black and white text.

Every, single, simpleton uses this same argument whenever jury nullification comes up. But black people would just lock up white and white people would just lock up blacks! Rosa parks was a fluke.

Can you all think of the real world for a second. You have appeals and higher courts so that a small subset decision can be heard in a wider audience that keeps racism in your county from being the final say

Can you all think of the real world for a second.

Sure. In the real world, jury nullification has been used to not prosecute whites who lynched blacks. This is not a hypothetical, it's truth. It's why these "simpletons" bring it up, because it's "historical evidence" that is used to "prove a point using facts".

My wife just received a jury summons. I will send her your post. Thanks!

How can aliens have a right to a jury of their peers in a country that isn't theirs?

Because the Supreme Court said so. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees due process among other things, applies to all aliens in the United States.

Zadvydas v. Davis

What's kind of interesting is that the case doesn't exactly address /u/dinosauraus question about why aliens can claim access to constitutional rights. Clark v. Martinez seems to come closer, implying that all persons within the United States are entitled to due process.

Although both cases seem to be related to indefinite detention as a cause, not constitutional rights generally, which is on the whole probably a good thing because it seems dangerous for the government to be able to claim the right to detain someone indefinitely without due process.

Don't judges have the ability to set aside jury verdicts when they believe that the jury has committed gross errors or ignored the rules they were given? Or at a minimum, declare a mistrial?

I guess I see it working in situations where the stakes are small and the injustice of a specific case being significant, but I would expect a major case to wind up with some kind of judicial intervention unless it ran into some kind of significant and widespread negative publicity and political pressure.

I thoroughly teach jury nullification to all of my high school students each and every year.

Does Jury nullification only work on a case by case basis, or can it be used as precident in other cases to actually change the law?

Can you all think of the real world for a second.

Sure. In the real world, jury nullification has been used to not prosecute whites who lynched blacks. This is not a hypothetical, it's truth. It's why these "simpletons" bring it up, because it's "historical evidence" that is used to "prove a point using facts".