Should juries be told about nullification in certain cases?

Excon said:

Yes they can be discounted because that is opinion based.

Click to expand...

Nope, not opinion. Historical fact.

Excon said:

Others can and have thought that not following the law is a greater injustice and that is regardless of what public opinion has brought about.

Click to expand...

Have you ever heard the phrase "Spirit of the law"? The kind of people that you are talking about don't believe in that phrase. They only care to go by the letter of the law. Such a system is not about what is Just. It's only about punishment and authoritarianism. Jury Nullification is about both when used properly.

Excon said:

And yes? What Are you agreeing to here? I never said it was coded into our Constitution.
Nullification is not "coded into".

The language used allows nullification to take place. It makes it a "de facto" ability, not a "right".
In other words, they shouldn't even though they have the ability. (which is what court rulings are acknowledging) And there is no remedy when they do so because a not guilty verdict can not be challenged.

Click to expand...

Actually it is coded into the Constitution. We even have the Founding Fathers talking about it...

"It is not only the juror's right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience though in direct opposition to the direction of the court" ~ John Adams February 12, 1771

And I could provide many more. To think that those that wrote the Constitution were not thinking about Jury Nullification when the Constitution was written is to deny history, or have no knowledge of it.

Excon said:

iLOL
No.
When the laws says one thing and the opposite is done, that is in fact lawlessness and not hyperbole.

Click to expand...

Just because the law says something doesn't mean that law applies or even should apply to every single circumstance. :shrug:

Excon said:

And again. Inherent in the language and the system used.
Not following the law is lawlessness.
Just because they can render a decision not in accordance with the law does not mean it is not lawlessness. This is just another reason why a separate instruction should not be given.

Telling a Jury, who is there to follow the law in determining if a law was broken, that they do not have to follow the law, is a contradiction, counter productive, and oxymoronic.

Click to expand...

No, the Jury is there to render a verdict based on their best understanding, judgment, and conscience of the law and facts of the case. They are not automatons of the government. If the only reason to have a jury is to have them base a verdict simply on the law and whether someone broke that law then there is no need of juries because a judge can do that just as well, if not better, than a jury. But that is not why we have juries. The very existence of jury trials is to make sure the law is applied fairly and appropriately. A jury trial is to be used as a check against tyranny. And you don't have to take my word for it. Just read about the history of jury trials and you'll see that for yourself. Here's a good place to start: The Evolution of the American Jury

Excon said:

There is no "but" to it.
Nothing there suggests anything is hidden or suppressed. The option is embedded in the language used because a Court can not force a guilty verdict.
There does not need to be a separate instruction given that fact.

And really, if a Juror does not understand the language used, they should not be on a Jury in the first place.


The jury is there to render a verdict based in the law by following the law.
While the option is inherent in the instructions and their ability to begin with it, it is counter productive and even oxymoronic to tell them they do not need to follow the law.
Such an instruction could lead to Jurors thinking that following the law does not matter and that they can vote to find the person guilty regardless of the evidence.



And Sparf suggests that no such "right" exists.


As Wiki relates ...

Responsibility of juries

Sparf v. United States clarified several questions relating to the duty of federal criminal juries, and of federal courts when instructing them.

• It is the duty of a jury to apply the law as given by the court to the facts of a case.
• A court may lay out the legal implications following from a set of facts, but it may not direct the jury to return a guilty verdict.
• A jury may, on the basis of evidence, convict of a lesser offense whose elements are included in another offense.
• In a trial for a person accused of murder, if evidence does not support conviction for a lesser offense, then the court may instruct the jury to consider guilt only for the offenses that have been charged. It is then the duty of the jury to do so.

Sparf remains the last direct opinion of the Court on jury nullification. While it does not prohibit juries from disputing the law in a case, it denies them any right to do so.[SUP][4][/SUP]
Sparf v. United States​

Click to expand...

Sparf is wrong. To see that you can simply go to the beginning of US history which is far closer to what was intended in the Constitution than any judge today can interpret unless they go by past rulings. Georgia v Brailsford has a SCOTUS judge John Jay telling the jury:

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.

Click to expand...

U.S. v. Moylan

We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.

Click to expand...

United States v. Dougherty is another one which upheld the Right of Jury Nullification but argued that it shouldn't be told to the jury (as did the judges in US v Moylan).

Wiki

Yes, in addition to the monstrous sentencing. Too often juries have said they would never have voted someone guilty of weed possession or whatever victimless crap if they knew it would lead to a 20 year mandatory minimum. Juries have to know the consequences of their decisions. That's a big reason i favor professional full time juries

The fact is our politicians are evil and bought off and that's where the laws come from so i say put the fate of the poor in someone else's hands

Kal'Stang said:

Jury Nullification isn't about telling juries that the facts and the law don't matter. It's about making sure that the law is applied appropriately instead of indiscriminately.

Click to expand...

Actually it can be entire about the law is ****ed. Kevorkian's persecution comes to mind, as he was acquitted over and over in spite of the law. Other times it's about how damned sweeping the law is -

https://www.rt.com/usa/california-man-13-prison-banks-237/

"Jeff Olson, the 40-year-old man who is being prosecuted for scrawling anti-megabank messages on sidewalks in water-soluble chalk last year now faces a 13-year jail sentence. A judge has barred his attorney from mentioning freedom of speech during trial. "

He got off because the lawyer argued that the "crime" was harmless. Which is the standard that should exist for a prosecution in the first place. But our politicians are bought off by the banks so there you go

Kal'Stang said:

No, the Jury is there to render a verdict based on their best understanding, judgment, and conscience of the law and facts of the case. They are not automatons of the government. If the only reason to have a jury is to have them base a verdict simply on the law and whether someone broke that law then there is no need of juries because a judge can do that just as well, if not better, than a jury. But that is not why we have juries. The very existence of jury trials is to make sure the law is applied fairly and appropriately. A jury trial is to be used as a check against tyranny. And you don't have to take my word for it. Just read about the history of jury trials and you'll see that for yourself. Here's a good place to start: The Evolution of the American Jury

Click to expand...

If it were a check against tyranny, we wouldn't have a higher prison population than china, north korea, and other despotic systems. Maybe once upon a time that was true. But in fact, juries are pretty much entirely automatons of the government now. Hence the 98% conviction rate despite the rate of wrongfully convicted (something like 10,000 a year going by DNA extrapolations). How can it be otherwise when only the stupid can't get out of jury duty?

Kal'Stang said:

Nope, not opinion. Historical fact.

Click to expand...

iLOL

No. "Good" is an opinion, not historic fact.

If this is the road chose to take, your arguments can simply be dismissed.

Kal'Stang said:

The kind of people that you are talking about don't believe in that phrase. They only care to go by the letter of the law. Such a system is not about what is Just. It's only about punishment and authoritarianism. Jury Nullification is about both when used properly.

Click to expand...

Is that what you think? That's nice.

When used properly? iLOL More opinion.

Kal'Stang said:

Actually it is coded into the Constitution. We even have the Founding Fathers talking about it...

"It is not only the juror's right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience though in direct opposition to the direction of the court" ~ John Adams February 12, 1771

Click to expand...

:lamo
Holy ****! No, Adam's opinion does not mean it is coded into the Constitution.

Kal'Stang said:

And I could provide many more. To think that those that wrote the Constitution were not thinking about Jury Nullification when the Constitution was written is to deny history, or have no knowledge of it.

Click to expand...

They are nothing more than personnel thoughts.
Trying to pass them off as something more important than personal opinion is hilarious.

Kal'Stang said:

Just because the law says something doesn't mean that law applies or even should apply to every single circumstance.

Click to expand...

When it covers that specific circumstance, yes it does.

Kal'Stang said:

No, the Jury is there to render a verdict based on their best understanding, judgment, and conscience of the law and facts of the case.

Click to expand...

As already provided.

Kal'Stang said:

If the only reason to have a jury is to have them base a verdict simply on the law and whether someone broke that law then there is no need of juries because a judge can do that just as well, if not better, than a jury. But that is not why we have juries. The very existence of jury trials is to make sure the law is applied fairly and appropriately.

Click to expand...

iLOL No.
The People deciding guilt based on the law is not the government deciding guilt (which is a form of tyranny).

Kal'Stang said:

Sparf is wrong.

Click to expand...

:lamo
By all means, take that to the SCOTUS and see how far you get.
You wont.

Kal'Stang said:

To see that you can simply go to the beginning of US history which is far closer to what was intended in the Constitution than any judge today can interpret unless they go by past rulings. Georgia v Brailsford has a SCOTUS judge John Jay telling the jury:

Kal'Stang said:

U.S. v. Moylan

Click to expand...

iLOL
A lower court recognizing the de facto ability, does not mean it is a "right".

And btw, you left this part out which supports what I previously said.

…by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to ensure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed.​

Kal'Stang said:

United States v. Dougherty is another one which upheld the Right of Jury Nullification but argued that it shouldn't be told to the jury (as did the judges in US v Moylan).

Click to expand...

And again. A lower court recognizing the de facto ability, does not mean it is a "right".


Look. I recognizes the de facto ability exists by the nature of our system. A Court can not direct that a defendant be found guilty, as that finding is in the sole discretion of the Jury.
My argument is that a separate Jury instruction is not needed and counter productive, contradictory and oxymoronic and can lead to undesirable outcomes, such as the Klan trials you pointed out. But hey, if you are okay with that, what the hell, right?

Click to expand...

chromium said:

If it were a check against tyranny, we wouldn't have a higher prison population than china, north korea, and other despotic systems. Maybe once upon a time that was true. But in fact, juries are pretty much entirely automatons of the government now. Hence the 98% conviction rate despite the rate of wrongfully convicted (something like 10,000 a year going by DNA extrapolations). How can it be otherwise when only the stupid can't get out of jury duty?

Click to expand...

There's way more going on here, and some of it you touch on.

- Draconian mandatory minimum sentences encourage plea deals, which means the vast majority of cases don't even go to trial, hence nullification doesn't even get a chance.

- Judges go out of their way to keep the average juror in the dark, regarding nullification, and some get testy when it is brought up. Others will say things in their instructions strong suggesting that rendering a guilty or not guilty verdict is the only option, when that's simply not true.

- Some people have been arrested for trying to educate jurors that nullification is indeed a legitimate option. The linked article is only one example.

It's not accurate to just say nullification isn't effective anymore.

radcen said:

There's way more going on here, and some of it you touch on.

- Draconian mandatory minimum sentences encourage plea deals, which means the vast majority of cases don't even go to trial, hence nullification doesn't even get a chance.

- Judges go out of their way to keep the average juror in the dark, regarding nullification, and some get testy when it is brought up. Others will say things in their instructions strong suggesting that rendering a guilty or not guilty verdict is the only option, when that's simply not true.

- Some people have been arrested for trying to educate jurors that nullification is indeed a legitimate option. The linked article is only one example.

It's not accurate to just say nullification isn't effective anymore.

Click to expand...

My point wasn't that nullification can't be effective but that even if lawyers could bring it up always, jurors are hopelessly clueless about the law, the reasons behind it, and whether it even ensures public safety

The nefarious side of nullification is of course the deep south after civil rights were attempted. The KKK and local cops were routinely acquitted of murder, forcing the fed to enact its own laws. But this is rare now compared to the vast number of unjust laws and sentencing. It's estimated that fully half of prisoners are not guilty of a crime where there's a victim at all. Case in point, those activists who were arrested with a felony even though juries themselves can escape punishment for nullifying the law...they just can't be made aware of it! To me what the activists did is no different from saying "This law shouldn't exist" That's no more that what political candidates do ("let's get rid of obamacare etc") And if citizens can't do that, we don't have a republic at all

And even if their actions were a threat to existing law, that only harkens back to the epidemic of uninformed juries.

What seems to be missing in this discussion, is that the limit of Jury Nullification, is that they can
only find that the law does not apply, in that single case, and the defendant is acquitted, (with jeopardy attached).
It is simply a tool to guard against unfair laws, and like any tool can be misused.
Our Justice system is weighted on the side of the defendant, Jury Nullification adds the wisdom
of the Jury to the mix of protections.

Excon said:

There is no "but" to it.
Nothing there suggests anything is hidden or suppressed. The option is embedded in the language used because a Court can not force a guilty verdict.
There does not need to be a separate instruction given that fact.

And really, if a Juror does not understand the language used, they should not be on a Jury in the first place.


The jury is there to render a verdict based in the law by following the law.
While the option is inherent in the instructions and their ability to begin with it, it is counter productive and even oxymoronic to tell them they do not need to follow the law.
Such an instruction could lead to Jurors thinking that following the law does not matter and that they can vote to find the person guilty regardless of the evidence.



And Sparf suggests that no such "right" exists.


As Wiki relates ...

Responsibility of juries

Sparf v. United States clarified several questions relating to the duty of federal criminal juries, and of federal courts when instructing them.

• It is the duty of a jury to apply the law as given by the court to the facts of a case.
• A court may lay out the legal implications following from a set of facts, but it may not direct the jury to return a guilty verdict.
• A jury may, on the basis of evidence, convict of a lesser offense whose elements are included in another offense.
• In a trial for a person accused of murder, if evidence does not support conviction for a lesser offense, then the court may instruct the jury to consider guilt only for the offenses that have been charged. It is then the duty of the jury to do so.

Sparf remains the last direct opinion of the Court on jury nullification. While it does not prohibit juries from disputing the law in a case, it denies them any right to do so.[SUP][4][/SUP]
Sparf v. United States​

Click to expand...

From the perspective of an authoritarian, everything you say makes sense.

From the perspective of a constitutionalist who believes that we really do have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, that all political power flows from The People, what you say is typical bull**** and sophistry.

I do understand that the second perspective is sentimental and romantic today, but there are still a few people around who believe that the government was created by the people and for the people, and that while not a perfect system, the jury power in the hands of the people is far better than anything else.

Thoreau72 said:

From the perspective of a constitutionalist who believes that we really do have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, that all political power flows from The People, what you say is typical bull**** and sophistry.

I do understand that the second perspective is sentimental and romantic today, but there are still a few people around who believe that the government was created by the people and for the people, and that while not a perfect system, the jury power in the hands of the people is far better than anything else.

Click to expand...

Trying to make this personal? iLOL That is sophistry. Duh!
On the other hand, I have made no fallacious argument. The position I have taken here is that a separate instruction is not required, nor should one be created.


The People, through their elected representatives created the laws to be followed by the people. Not to be circumvented. The Supreme Court already spoke to this.

If the People do not like a law they can petition their government for a remedy.


Apparently you didn't see the following.

Excon said:

Trying to make this personal? iLOL That is sophistry. Duh!
On the other hand, I have made no fallacious argument. The position I have taken here is that a separate instruction is not required, nor should one be created.


The People, through their elected representatives created the laws to be followed by the people. Not to be circumvented. The Supreme Court already spoke to this.

If the People do not like a law they can petition their government for a remedy.


Apparently you didn't see the following.

Look. I recognizes the de facto ability exists by the nature of our system. A Court can not direct that a defendant be found guilty, as that finding is in the sole discretion of the Jury.
My argument is that a separate Jury instruction is not needed and counter productive, contradictory and oxymoronic and can lead to undesirable outcomes, such as the Klan trials you pointed out. But hey, if you are okay with that, what the hell, right? ​

Click to expand...

You have presented nothing more than government talking points. I get it. You present the authoritarian view from the Bully Pulpit. I get it, nothing new Excon, nothing at all.

It's just that I don't buy into the authoritarian bully pulpit pronouncements. I am very much aware of them, but I favor the philosophy that all political power flows from the people, and that the government was created by the people, and is therefore subservient to them. The least those in Black Robes could do is honor the jury power. Instead, it suppresses actively any knowledge of the jury power that many people may not possess. You want me to buy into that load of horse manure. I will not.

You're not right, your just on the side of authority, however abusive. You go with George Bush and Barack Obama and Donald Trump, whereas on this issue I'm going with Thomas Jefferson--the jury power is the best means yet devised by man to keep the government within its legal bounds. The Sparf decision simply lays bare the intentions of bureaucrats everywhere--grow the state and keep the people in the dark.

Thoreau72 said:

You have presented nothing more than government talking points. I get it. You present the authoritarian view from the Bully Pulpit. I get it, nothing new Excon, nothing at all.

It's just that I don't buy into the authoritarian bully pulpit pronouncements. I am very much aware of them, but I favor the philosophy that all political power flows from the people, and that the government was created by the people, and is therefore subservient to them. The least those in Black Robes could do is honor the jury power. Instead, it suppresses actively any knowledge of the jury power that many people may not possess. You want me to buy into that load of horse manure. I will not.

You're not right, your just on the side of authority, however abusive. You go with George Bush and Barack Obama and Donald Trump, whereas on this issue I'm going with Thomas Jefferson--the jury power is the best means yet devised by man to keep the government within its legal bounds. The Sparf decision simply lays bare the intentions of bureaucrats everywhere--grow the state and keep the people in the dark.

Click to expand...

iLOL
I am a pirate and I mock you on the plank of mockingdom.

:2razz:

radcen said:

iLOL
I am a pirate and I mock you on the plank of mockingdom.

:2razz:

Click to expand...

I guess you're happy Radcen, and if you are that's good, but are you also mocking the notion of jury power? Are you mocking the democratic process? Do you also mock Jefferson's thoughts on the subject?

Or just mocking instead of commenting in a substantive manner?

Thoreau72 said:

You have presented nothing more than government talking points. I get it. You present the authoritarian view from the Bully Pulpit. I get it, nothing new Excon, nothing at all.

Click to expand...

Obviously you do not get it, made up something to believe, and then based your reply on that lie.


I presented the reasoning of the Court.
That is not a Government talking point. That is reality and their reasoning is far more valid than yours is.

Thoreau72 said:

... the authoritarian bully pulpit pronouncements.

Click to expand...

Biased nonsense and an irrational pronouncement.

Thoreau72 said:

, but I favor the philosophy that all political power flows from the people,

Click to expand...

Get a grip and contact your legislators, as that is what they are for.


The rest of what you said was just a continuance of the previous irrational biased nonsense and you do not even actually address my stated position.
You have nothing but emotional bs.

Excon said:

Obviously you do not get it, made up something to believe, and then based your reply on that lie.


I presented the reasoning of the Court.
That is not a Government talking point. That is reality and their reasoning is far more valid than yours is.



Biased nonsense and an irrational pronouncement.



Get a grip and contact your legislators, as that is what they are for.


The rest of what you said was just a continuance of the previous irrational biased nonsense and you do not even actually address my stated position.
You have nothing but emotional bs.

Click to expand...

Please refresh my memory--isn't the Court part of government? If so, my statement that you present government talking points is true and accurate. You present the authoritarian view of the court.

The Court speaks from the Bully Pulpit. That any court's decision can be overturned shows that any court can be wrong. It can make errors. Including SCOTUS. They might wear robes like priests, but by acknowledging that they can make errors, clearly they are priests only in appearance. Rarely a SCOTUS will overturn a ruling from an earlier SCOTUS.

The jury power was well known to the earliest US citizens, and largely because of Sparf, subsequent generations of US citizens are completely ignorant of and oblivious to the jury power.

Thankfully, some citizens want to change that through education of the public. Jury Nullification | Fully Informed Jury Association

Thoreau72 said:

Please refresh my memory--isn't the Court part of government? If so, my statement that you present government talking points is true and accurate. You present the authoritarian view of the court.

Click to expand...

Doh.
It is not a talking point, but what factually is.

Thoreau72 said:

The Court speaks from the Bully Pulpit. That any court's decision can be overturned shows that any court can be wrong. It can make errors. Including SCOTUS. They might wear robes like priests, but by acknowledging that they can make errors, clearly they are priests only in appearance. Rarely a SCOTUS will overturn a ruling from an earlier SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

Oy vey! Doh! What I said earlier applies.

Thoreau72 said:

The jury power was well known to the earliest US citizens, and largely because of Sparf, subsequent generations of US citizens are completely ignorant of and oblivious to the jury power.

Click to expand...

No.
It is inherent in the language and only a dumb **** would need it spelled out to them.

Thoreau72 said:

Thankfully, some citizens want to change that through education of the public. Jury Nullification | Fully Informed Jury Association

Click to expand...

:lamo
What they are saying is that folks are too stupid to be able to understand what is available to them by the instructions given. Sad.


A separate Jury instruction is not needed. It is counter productive, contradictory and oxymoronic and can lead to undesirable outcomes, such as the Klan trials previously pointed out. But hey, if you are okay with that, what the hell, right?