Once disfavored, juries refusing the enforce laws with which they disagree has a long history. But with so many truly whacked jury verdicts these days maybe we should revisit?

Quote:

---

The practice has its roots in the best traditions of Americana, as it was used to defang the British Crown in the time before the Revolution when it otherwise abused the colonists with impunity. "Nullification had its American origins in colonial juries which ignored British law to acquit dissidents. Along with civil disobedience, nullification may be seen as an integral feature of the birth of this nation," J.B. Weinstein writes in the American Criminal Law Review.

Jury nullification is one of the only tools at an individual level that enables the individual to exercise his or her own moral judgment within the criminal justice system above and beyond the technical question of whether the letter of a law was broken or not.

---

Quote:

---

The problem for proponents of jury nullification is that lawyers are generally barred from seeding the concept within the minds of juries during court proceedings. If jurors are going to discover the power they have, they'll have to do it outside of the courtroom.

---

Quote:

---

The reason, of course, that the ongoing theatrical prosecutions of MAGA "domestic terrorists" are located in jurisdictions like D.C., New York, and Fulton County, Ga. (right in the middle of inner-city Atlanta) are two-fold: the district attorneys are partisan Democrats who will prosecute whomever George Soros tells them to prosecute and, more relevant to this discussion, the jury pool is overwhelmingly partisan as well.

---

LINK

Keeping the jury in the dark is supposed to protect the defendant's due process rights but is that actually true anymore? Cases that should never be prosecuted are now routinely brought anyway and convictions ensue.

Watch the short clip above. Thoughts on whether juries should be instructed on nullification?

If I had been on Perry's or Chauvin's jury, it would've been hung. Total miscarriage of justice in both instances.

Any case brought by any three letter agency should be nullified.

Slicer97 said:

---

If I had been on Perry's or Chauvin's jury, it would've been hung. Total miscarriage of justice in both instances.

---

I would say the same and add the Aex Murdaugh and Zacariah Anderson trials. Yes. Murdaugh is true POS human being who deserves to be in prison for a very long time for his financial crimes but there was little evidence linking him to the murders of his wife and son.

And in Anderson, there was no body, just a missing person. No DNA from Anderson in the missing person's apartment (the bloody crime scene) nor DNA from the missong person in any of Anderson's vehicles, nor home. Bu Anderson worked as contractor but also grew and sold weed.

As we self segregate geographically and areas become politically biased to an extreme degree, we really should be looking at randomizing venues other measures to protect the rights of the accused from being venue shipped to a location where a fair trial will be extremely unlikely.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

As we self segregate geographically and areas become politically biased to an extreme degree, we really should be looking at randomizing venues other measures to protect the rights of the accused from being venue shipped to a location where a fair trial will be extremely unlikely.

---

Not sure how that could be done.

A jury ignored the law in the Austin case where an Uber driver neutralized an armed "protester" brandishing a rifle, despite clear evidence it was a justified shoot.

UTExan said:

---

A jury ignored the law in the Austin case where an Uber driver neutralized an armed "protester" brandishing a rifle, despite clear evidence it was a justified shoot.

---

But did they really "ignore" the law? Or just made up facts to suit their purpose? Facts that were "suggested" to them by the prosecution such as duty to retreat which does not exist under Texas law.

OJ was the modern launch pad.

aggiehawg said:

---

UTExan said:

---

A jury ignored the law in the Austin case where an Uber driver neutralized an armed "protester" brandishing a rifle, despite clear evidence it was a justified shoot.

---

But did they really "ignore" the law? Or just made up facts to suit their purpose? Facts that were "suggested" to them by the prosecution such as duty to retreat which does not exist under Texas law.

---

There is a duty to retreat in Texas except under certain circumstances, but that's neither here nor there.

The jury foreperson in the Sussman case flat-out admitted to nullifying, saying prosecutors should've been focused on more important things.

Random assignment of cases to district court?

Only other option is random jury assignments or a "checkerboard" of scattered areas in the region for each court to pull jurists from, interspersed amongst each other feeding different districts in the region, versus big blocs of territory. Mix things up.

Not a Bot said:

---

The jury foreperson in the Sussman case flat-out admitted to nullifying, saying prosecutors should've been focused on more important things.

---

Indeed it is a double edged sword. I have never been in favor of instructing juries about conscientious acquittal, FTR. But now I'm beginning to rethink our juries are less 12 angry men and more of follow the leader.

Also have to wonder how it would change voir dire questions/strikes were nullification allowed to be discussed?

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Random assignment of cases to district court?

Only other option is random jury assignments or a "checkerboard" of scattered areas in the region for each court to pull jurists from, interspersed amongst each other feeding different districts in the region, versus big blocs of territory. Mix things up.

---

They are supposed to be random now, I thought. Although I have noticed that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as more and more state courts become specialized. Certain judges hear criminal cases, some hear civil cases, some only family law, probate, etc.

The recent conviction of gun tuber Matt Hoover and auto key card inventor Justin Ervin were egregious examples of bad jury verdicts and overzealous federal prosecutors.

Last time I went through jury selection we were asked to give our opinions on the practice of jury nullification. I answered honestly and I'm pretty sure the prosecution struck me for my answer.

textar4404 said:

---

Last time I went through jury selection we were asked to give our opinions on the practice of jury nullification. I answered honestly and I'm pretty sure the prosecution struck me for my answer.

---

Really? General location, please?

aggiehawg said:

---

Keeping the jury in the dark is supposed to protect the defendant's due process rights

---

No it isn't. How could instructing the jury that they have the option to just acquit even if they are convinced of the defendant's factual guilt be a denial of the defendant's due process rights? Are we protecting the defendant's right to be convicted?

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Keeping the jury in the dark is supposed to protect the defendant's due process rights

---

No it isn't. How could instructing the jury that they have the option to just acquit even if they are convinced of the defendant's factual guilt be a denial of the defendant's due process rights? Are we protecting the defendant's right to be convicted?

---

Watch the short video of the arguments pro and con on the subject. And it is not solely restricted to jury nullification, also goes to evidentiary rules, character evidence, prior bad acts, etc.

To me, the biggest problem for juries today is massive media coverage that influences them before they even receive a summons for a panel. Few people have the ability to be honest and admit they have prejudged the case so they hedge saying they'll "try" to be impartial and apply the presumption of innocence.

Further, juries really need to be educated on what legal terms mean, what it means when objections happen, when a judge directs a jury to disregard something, etc. While on the panel, not after they are chosen for the jury.

Make them think, BEFORE voir dire begins.

aggiehawg said:

---

textar4404 said:

---

Last time I went through jury selection we were asked to give our opinions on the practice of jury nullification. I answered honestly and I'm pretty sure the prosecution struck me for my answer.

---

Really? General location, please?

---

Bryan, TX

There are misconceptions about what jury nullification is. My best example of true and proper jury nullification is "A Time to Kill." It is a decision not to convict, even if the evidence is there, because a conviction would be a miscarriage of justice. It should be extremely rare. A lot of people think jury nullification is refusing to ever convict someone of a specific crime, like POCS. That's not jury nullification, that's violating your oath.

Pookers said:

---

Any case brought by any three letter agency should be nullified.

---

Agree, even though there are some cases where they would not lie. I think we have to burn the entire place down to try to drive change.

The problem with it potentially is that once they learn what is happening, can they venue shop and prosecute cases in blue areas to get the results they want? No idea if that is possible.

aggiehawg said:

---

Once disfavored, juries refusing the enforce laws with which they disagree has a long history. But with so many truly whacked jury verdicts these days maybe we should revisit?

Quote:

---

The practice has its roots in the best traditions of Americana, as it was used to defang the British Crown in the time before the Revolution when it otherwise abused the colonists with impunity. "Nullification had its American origins in colonial juries which ignored British law to acquit dissidents. Along with civil disobedience, nullification may be seen as an integral feature of the birth of this nation," J.B. Weinstein writes in the American Criminal Law Review.

Jury nullification is one of the only tools at an individual level that enables the individual to exercise his or her own moral judgment within the criminal justice system above and beyond the technical question of whether the letter of a law was broken or not.

---

Quote:

---

The problem for proponents of jury nullification is that lawyers are generally barred from seeding the concept within the minds of juries during court proceedings. If jurors are going to discover the power they have, they'll have to do it outside of the courtroom.

---

Quote:

---

The reason, of course, that the ongoing theatrical prosecutions of MAGA "domestic terrorists" are located in jurisdictions like D.C., New York, and Fulton County, Ga. (right in the middle of inner-city Atlanta) are two-fold: the district attorneys are partisan Democrats who will prosecute whomever George Soros tells them to prosecute and, more relevant to this discussion, the jury pool is overwhelmingly partisan as well.

---

LINK

Keeping the jury in the dark is supposed to protect the defendant's due process rights but is that actually true anymore? Cases that should never be prosecuted are now routinely brought anyway and convictions ensue.

Watch the short clip above. Thoughts on whether juries should be instructed on nullification?

---

I have read that these days, you can pretty much assume that on any big trial, at least one of the jurors will do his own search for information about the trial on the Internet.

I've often argued that the jurors should be able to know all the details about the case and should be able to ask their own questions of witnesses. Also, that it should be the jury's job to not only determine the facts, but also to use their judgment to find the person not guilty if they think that the person was justified.

Not only that, the jurors ought to be able to go with their own knowledge. For example, if a witness is speaking Spanish and the court has an interpreter, if a juror speaks Spanish fluently and thinks that the interpreter got it wrong, he must still use the interpreter's version. I've heard of jurors being chastised by the court for telling the other jurors during deliberation what the witness actually said.

Some years ago, I read an article about the original juries in England. According to the article, it was expected that the jurors already knew about the crime and may have even witnessed it and that was not considered a reason for them not to appear on the jury.

aggiehawg said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

The jury foreperson in the Sussman case flat-out admitted to nullifying, saying prosecutors should've been focused on more important things.

---

Indeed it is a double edged sword. I have never been in favor of instructing juries about conscientious acquittal, FTR. But now I'm beginning to rethink our juries are less 12 angry men and more of follow the leader.

Also have to wonder how it would change voir dire questions/strikes were nullification allowed to be discussed?

---

I was on a jury panel once for the case of some 20's something kid charged with selling fake drugs.

During voir dire, the prosecutor asked if anyone believed that pretty much all drugs should be legal. I was the only one to raise my hand. It should be noted that I hate drugs, but feel that the war on drugs has reached the point of being far worse for the country and the citizens than the drugs at all.

I didn't make it on the jury, but I was pretty far down the line on the panel anyway.

After the jury was selected, we broke for lunch and I rode the elevator down with the prosecutor. I asked him why he didn't charge him for something like fraud instead -- that it seemed to me that selling someone fake drugs that didn't do anything didn't sound like a bad thing, but if they proved fraud, I'd be more than happy to convict. He replied that the had considered that but went with the fake drug charges instead.