• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should juries be told about nullification in certain cases?

Kal'Stang said:
And no, judges may not overrule any juries findings of acquittal. They can overrule a jury verdict of the "death penalty" applying for instance. But no judge can reverse an acquittal.
Click to expand...
He's getting confused with a judge overruling a jury in a guilty verdict when the judge disagrees there was sufficient evidence presented by the prosecution. If I were a defendant, I'd appreciate knowing that a jury might nullify my case, but that also that guy/lady on the bench might do what's right, too.

But on the other hand, I always wondered why the judge even wasted the time of the jury in deliberating if he already knew he was going to overturn any guilty verdict. :doh
 
Kal'Stang said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

Read up.

Can A Judge Overturn A Jury's Guilty Verdict? | MINICK LAW

Although it is unusual for a judge to overturn a guilty verdict, given certain circumstances, a judge does have the authority to do so when certain things have occurred. Generally, most instances of a judge overriding the jury’s verdict of guilty are based on insufficient evidence being presented at trial by the prosecution.

As a result of this insufficient evidence, the judge will see that no reasonable jury could have come to and reached a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. Typically, this occurs where the defendant is being charged with multiple crimes that each have their own unique elements that must be fulfilled for a guilty verdict.​

Done.

Where are you getting your "facts"?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

54851523.jpg
 
ocean515 said:
I don't believe homicide laws contain a mercy killing exception. However, I think many people are familiar with Judges passing light sentences when juries have found defendants guilty of murder in such cases.

I'm not aware of complete acquittal, but I think most are aware how judges apply their own discretion when determining sentences.

Arizona man, 86, sentenced to probation after mercy killing of his ailing wife | Fox News

PHOENIX – There was no doubt 86-year-old George Sanders killed his ailing wife. Yet everyone in the small Arizona courtroom — the prosecutor, the judge and even the couple's family members — agreed it was a time for compassion, not punishment.​

This is all settled law.

So what is the real point here? Not finding people guilty when they have broken drug laws?
Click to expand...

The real point is that applying the law does not mean applying the laws that a particular judge (or jury) agrees with.
 
ocean515 said:
Read up.

Can A Judge Overturn A Jury's Guilty Verdict? | MINICK*LAW

Although it is unusual for a judge to overturn a guilty verdict, given certain circumstances, a judge does have the authority to do so when certain things have occurred. Generally, most instances of a judge overriding the jury’s verdict of guilty are based on insufficient evidence being presented at trial by the prosecution.

As a result of this insufficient evidence, the judge will see that no reasonable jury could have come to and reached a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. Typically, this occurs where the defendant is being charged with multiple crimes that each have their own unique elements that must be fulfilled for a guilty verdict.​

Done.

Where are you getting your "facts"?
Click to expand...

Brewdog is correct, you are confusing the difference between a judge overturning a guilty verdict and an acquittal by a Jury.

As for where am I getting my facts? The 5th Amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...

That is the amendment which contains the double jeopardy clause. No person shall be tried for the same offense twice.

Doulbe Jeopardy

Also besides the case the first link refers to here is another case:

Ashe v. Swenson

It is that double jeopardy clause which allows Jury Nullification to exist. Without it Jury Nullification would be rendered almost useless.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The real point is that applying the law does not mean applying the laws that a particular judge (or jury) agrees with.
Click to expand...

Juries are not tasked with applying laws that aren't relative to the matter they are considering. If the defendant has cause, they can appeal the verdict confirmed by the presiding judge.

I'm surprised, I think, by the anarchy that some are promoting.
 
It would be interesting for some surveys to be done to see how many likely jurors are independently aware of the concept of jury nullification.

It only take one jury member out of twelve or six to made a whole jury aware of the concept.

For myself I been on a number of juries over the years and had always been aware of the concept and in fact even once brought it up to other members of a jury.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Problem is that there are lots of instances where laws have been passed that were not advocated for by the majority of people, or even a decent amount of minority people. But instead where advocated for by people with money that could get to be heard just because they had money. Most, if not all, politicians don't even read the mail that is sent to them by their constituents. Politicians simply don't listen to The People unless there is some sort of gain in it for them.

Regardless, even if a law is Just that doesn't mean that that law should be applied in any and all circumstances. Which is one of the major reasons to have Jury Nullification. JN recognizes that there are instances where while the person yes technically broke the law it doesn't mean that the should be applied to that person due to certain circumstances.
Click to expand...

So you are all for the tyranny of the majority then?
 
MaggieD said:
  • A father who kills the man who killed his little boy as he walks from justic on a technicality.
  • An 80-year-old man who helps his dying wife commit suicide.
  • A drug dealer who is charged with selling marijuana.

We are supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers. Why are juries not told they have this option? Why have we put the legal eagles, attorneys and judges, in charge of whether or not to prosecute? Why do the people not have a voice?

Judges don't tell juries they have the right to nullify a law in a particular case. Complicated jury instructions are given which say things like, "If the jury finds the defendant smothered his wife with a pillow, you must find the defendant is guilty of ...whatever..." Why, among all of the options, is the jury not given information on one of its most important rights? Jury nullification.

Do you think juries should be instructed as to jury nullification?
Click to expand...

An excellent topic Maggie! Yes, juries should be informed of their power and obligations regarding nullification.

Beginning with the Sparf decision in 1895, the US judiciary began a long process of suppressing knowledge of that power and responsibility. The jury is WE THE PEOPLE, just as Jefferson and other founders noted. Perhaps that is one reason the right to jury trial is mentioned twice in the US Constitution.

The government, judiciary and executive branches, are threatened by jury verdicts that do not rubber stamp their devious prosecutions, so a steady effort to keep people ignorant of the fact has been going on for more than 100 years. Thanks for bringing this up.

http:Jury Nullification | Fully Informed Jury Association
 
Kal'Stang said:
Brewdog is correct, you are confusing the difference between a judge overturning a guilty verdict and an acquittal by a Jury.

As for where am I getting my facts? The 5th Amendment.



That is the amendment which contains the double jeopardy clause. No person shall be tried for the same offense twice.

Doulbe Jeopardy

Also besides the case the first link refers to here is another case:

Ashe v. Swenson

It is that double jeopardy clause which allows Jury Nullification to exist. Without it Jury Nullification would be rendered almost useless.
Click to expand...


You are confusing all sorts of case law and rulings. Yes, it is almost unheard of for a Judge to overturn an acquittal by a jury. That was not the question asked in the OP.

There is a reason people spend years going to law school. The application of the law is extremely complex.

The question was asked in the OP about instructing juries about jury nullification. I offered my opinion on the subject.

The rest of these exchanges simply points to how difficult it is for the layman to understand how laws are applied and debated through the court system.
 
Here is more information on jury nullification power of juries.


Tenth Amendment Center Blog | New Hampshire House Passes Bill That Would Require Courts to Fully Inform Juries

CONCORD, N.H. (Feb. 15, 2017) – A New Hampshire bill that would require state courts to fully inform jurors of their right to nullify passed the House today.


House Bill 133 (HB133) would require courts to “inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.” An unusually short and concise bill by modern standards, it reads, in part:

At the request of the defendant or the defendant’s attorney, the court shall instruct the jury as follows: “If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the state has proved any one or more of the elements of the crime charged, you must find the defendant not guilty. However if you find that the state has proved all the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty. Even if you find that the state has proved all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find that based upon the facts of this case a guilty verdict will yield an unjust result, and you may find the defendant not guilty.”

HB133 passed the House by a 170-160 vote.

Final passage would bring to light the indispensable right of regular people sitting in the jury box to stand up against laws that violate basic rights or have been applied in a way that creates a miscarriage of justice.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Crovax said:
So you are all for the tyranny of the majority then?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that this is in reference to some other subject that I've commented on? The world is not black and white. I hold many opinions that seem to contradict one another. As with many things there is a time and place for everything. At times a "tyranny of the majority" is a necessity. At others it is wrong and should not be allowed. Our legislative system is based on democracy (tyranny of the majority) in how it judges what laws to institute and which ones not to institute. Our judicial system even has elements of "tyranny of the majority" in the fact that a jury panel is larger than a single judge. However a jury is far smaller than the Congress/Senate yet can over rule (through jury nullification) a law passed by the Congress/Senate. I support both Congress/Senate AND Jury Nullification. I support Individual Rights and believe that neither the Congress/Senate has the power, no matter how many people are behind them, to strip away Individual Rights.

Nothing is black and white. :shrug: What my stance is depends entirely on the situation and circumstances.
 
ocean515 said:
You are confusing all sorts of case law and rulings. Yes, it is almost unheard of for a Judge to overturn an acquittal by a jury. That was not the question asked in the OP.

There is a reason people spend years going to law school. The application of the law is extremely complex.

The question was asked in the OP about instructing juries about jury nullification. I offered my opinion on the subject.

The rest of these exchanges simply points to how difficult it is for the layman to understand how laws are applied and debated through the court system.
Click to expand...

Almost unheard of? It has never been done in the United States. I would challenge even that little bit of an assertion by you or anyone else. So please, prove that even that "almost unheard of" statement is true. All you need is one case in which an acquittal by a jury has been reversed.

And we're talking about Jury Nullification, which has nothing to do with a judge overruling a guilty verdict. It only has to do with acquittals.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Almost unheard up? It has never been done in the United States. I would challenge even that little bit of an assertion by you or anyone else. So please, prove that even that "almost unheard of" statement is true. All you need is one case in which an acquittal by a jury has been reversed.

And we're talking about Jury Nullification, which has nothing to do with a judge overruling a guilty verdict. It only has to do with acquittals.
Click to expand...

Not true. It has been done. According to the records, at least once. I admit, that's pretty close to never.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Aleman

Harry Aleman, Petitioner-appellant, v. the Honorable Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County,criminal Division, Illinois, Honorable Michael P. Toomin,judge Presiding, Honorable Richard Devine, State's Attorneyof Cook County, Illinois, Ernesto Vela

I think I have proven that when I write something, I'm coming from a place of knowledge.

Before you make these absolute statements, why don't you make sure you have a basis in fact before doing so?

I have been writing about jury nullification. I'm not responsible for where the ebb and flow of the conversation goes.

This has reached the level of pointless.

I'm not for anarchy. I wish those seeking it luck it achieving such a result. I don't foresee a time when the people will support such a societal standard.
 
MaggieD said:
  • A father who kills the man who killed his little boy as he walks from justic on a technicality.
  • An 80-year-old man who helps his dying wife commit suicide.
  • A drug dealer who is charged with selling marijuana.

We are supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers. Why are juries not told they have this option? Why have we put the legal eagles, attorneys and judges, in charge of whether or not to prosecute? Why do the people not have a voice?

Judges don't tell juries they have the right to nullify a law in a particular case. Complicated jury instructions are given which say things like, "If the jury finds the defendant smothered his wife with a pillow, you must find the defendant is guilty of ...whatever..." Why, among all of the options, is the jury not given information on one of its most important rights? Jury nullification.

Do you think juries should be instructed as to jury nullification?
Click to expand...

I say yes. Juries should be informed about all the possible choices they can make.
 
Everyone on the jury knows that their vote is very important. Only unanimous jury decisions count.
 
ocean515 said:
Not true. It has been done. According to the records, at least once. I admit, that's pretty close to never.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Aleman

Harry Aleman, Petitioner-appellant, v. the Honorable Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County,criminal Division, Illinois, Honorable Michael P. Toomin,judge Presiding, Honorable Richard Devine, State's Attorneyof Cook County, Illinois, Ernesto Vela

I think I have proven that when I write something, I'm coming from a place of knowledge.

Before you make these absolute statements, why don't you make sure you have a basis in fact before doing so?

I have been writing about jury nullification. I'm not responsible for where the ebb and flow of the conversation goes.

This has reached the level of pointless.

I'm not for anarchy. I wish those seeking it luck it achieving such a result. I don't foresee a time when the people will support such a societal standard.
Click to expand...

That was a bench trial. No juries involved. Therefor this is not a case in which an acquittal by a jury has been reversed.
 
BillRM said:
It would be interesting for some surveys to be done to see how many likely jurors are independently aware of the concept of jury nullification.

It only take one jury member out of twelve or six to made a whole jury aware of the concept.

For myself I been on a number of juries over the years and had always been aware of the concept and in fact even once brought it up to other members of a jury.
Click to expand...

If that ever gets out to a judge when you do that the judge can declare a mistrial so be sure when you talk about it the other members of the jury won't go running to the judge.
 
Brewdog said:
Nullification is a double edged sword. It can be used to prevent the government from running roughshod over the citizenry with unjust laws. But it can also be used to prevent the government from prosecuting just laws (as in the acquittal of Klansmen for lynchings).

There certainly a place for nullification. If I were a juror and was incensed by the railroading of a fellow citizen for a law I consider to be unjust, there's nothing that would convince me to find the defendant guilty. Whether he committed the crime or not.


Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off ... This gives me comfort—that, as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me. -Patrick Henry
Click to expand...
The justice system is a double-edged sword, as well. It too can be used for just purpose, and it can run roughshod over the people. Nullification just brings some semblance of balance.
 
MaggieD said:
  • A father who kills the man who killed his little boy as he walks from justic on a technicality.
  • An 80-year-old man who helps his dying wife commit suicide.
  • A drug dealer who is charged with selling marijuana.

We are supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers. Why are juries not told they have this option? Why have we put the legal eagles, attorneys and judges, in charge of whether or not to prosecute? Why do the people not have a voice?

Judges don't tell juries they have the right to nullify a law in a particular case. Complicated jury instructions are given which say things like, "If the jury finds the defendant smothered his wife with a pillow, you must find the defendant is guilty of ...whatever..." Why, among all of the options, is the jury not given information on one of its most important rights? Jury nullification.

Do you think juries should be instructed as to jury nullification?
Click to expand...

They are.

By the Defense Attorney.
 
MaggieD said:
  • A father who kills the man who killed his little boy as he walks from justic on a technicality.
  • An 80-year-old man who helps his dying wife commit suicide.
  • A drug dealer who is charged with selling marijuana.

We are supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers. Why are juries not told they have this option? Why have we put the legal eagles, attorneys and judges, in charge of whether or not to prosecute? Why do the people not have a voice?

Judges don't tell juries they have the right to nullify a law in a particular case. Complicated jury instructions are given which say things like, "If the jury finds the defendant smothered his wife with a pillow, you must find the defendant is guilty of ...whatever..." Why, among all of the options, is the jury not given information on one of its most important rights? Jury nullification.

Do you think juries should be instructed as to jury nullification?
Click to expand...
I wholly support nullification. But, I do not think it is the court's responsibility to inform jurors that it is available as an option. Having said that, if a juror asks, the court should be legally required to tell the truth and to not discourage its use. Further, a court should not have the ability to discourage or reprimand an attorney on either side from mentioning it as a legitimate option.
 
radcen said:
I wholly support nullification. But, I do not think it is the court's responsibility to inform jurors that it is available as an option. Having said that, if a juror asks, the court should be legally required to tell the truth and to not discourage its use. Further, a court should not have the ability to discourage or reprimand an attorney on either side from mentioning it as a legitimate option.
Click to expand...

The juror is the citizen, and the judge works for the citizens, and the juror does not need to ask permission before exercising his constitutional authority.

And that relates to a TV interview I saw years ago with Connie Chung if you remember her. After the trial in Waco over the Branch Davidian mess, Connie interviewed several of the jurors. Two women, and they were heart broken and in tears, wishing they had known more about their powers. They were ashamed that they had rendered the wrong verdict, because they never found out from the government in the trial the whole truth.

Had the court notified them of their powers and responsibilities, likely a different verdict would have been reached. This is why the Crown does not like to acknowledge jury power.
 
I'm conflicted. On one hand, I am a strong proponent of jury nullification in certain cases. But if every jury were told it was an option then trials will end up judging the merits of the law rather than the merits of the case. Maybe that isn't the worst thing but that isn't the way our system is supposed to work.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I'm conflicted. On one hand, I am a strong proponent of jury nullification in certain cases. But if every jury were told it was an option then trials will end up judging the merits of the law rather than the merits of the case. Maybe that isn't the worst thing but that isn't the way our system is supposed to work.
Click to expand...

Firstly, we must remember that utopia is never an option, no system is perfect at delivering justice.

The jury is based on the notion that 12 peers to the defendant will be more likely to deliver justice than will any number of bureaucrats. Jefferson saw it as the best means yet discovered by man to keep the government within its lawful confines, as defined by the founding document.

Society and civilization will sink or swim on the health of its jury system, Maybe that's why it's twice mentioned in the USC?

And through history the jury has delivered justice when society most needs it.

There is a reason the authorities suppress jury nullification, even as jurors are nearly led around by the leash in the county courthouse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom