• 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!

Mistrial Declared In Marlon Sewell Trial After Juror Won’t Consider Evidence

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Jurors in the case sent a note to Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Vincent Del Giudice.which said that Juror No. 3, who is black, had refused to consider the evidence in the case since the first day of trial, according to the New York Daily News.Sewell’s attorney formally requested the mistrial due to the ‘chaos’ in the jurors’ deliberation room.

​
Juror No. 3 had expressed her reluctance to convict Sewell from the first day of trial. She said “I don’t want to put a black man in jail. That’s crazy.”
Two other jurors had complained about Juror No. 3 to Justice Del Giudice, and one juror had passed out from the chaos in the deliberation room during the three days of trial.
Click to expand...
https://bluelivesmatter.blue/marlon-sewell-mistrial/

That's fubar.
 
reinoe said:
It's not different than judges doing the same thing when they refuse to consider evidence against cops.
Click to expand...

Common Sense 1 said:
Accept they don't refuse to consider evidence.
Click to expand...

When judges refuse to consider evidence, that means there is something wrong with it: it is not substantial, not related to the fact of the case, collected illegally, or something of that nature. In other words, it's bad evidence.

A juror refusing to consider evidence is simply not wanting to see or know the facts. That's entirely something else.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
When judges refuse to consider evidence, that means there is something wrong with it: it is not substantial, not related to the fact of the case, collected illegally, or something of that nature. In other words, it's bad evidence.

A juror refusing to consider evidence is simply not wanting to see or know the facts. That's entirely something else.
Click to expand...

Its the juries right to consider whatever they wish to consider, including nothing.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Its the juries right to consider whatever they wish to consider, including nothing.
Click to expand...

...yeah, that's not true.

Jurors are sworn in with the duty to provide a verdict according to the evidence. That being said, a juror can practice nullification, meaning they can deliver a "not guilty" plea in spite of the evidence of guilt, but they can't NOT consider the evidence. It's a grey area, but distinctly different.

A juror can say, "I don't think possession of marijuana should be a crime, even though this dude was clearly caught with a pound of weed. So, not guilty then." That is an example of nullification. But a juror who says, "I'm not going to send a black man to jail" is doing something quite different.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
...yeah, that's not true.

Jurors are sworn in with the duty to provide a verdict according to the evidence. That being said, a juror can practice nullification, meaning they can deliver a "not guilty" plea in spite of the evidence of guilt, but they can't NOT consider the evidence. It's a grey area, but distinctly different.

A juror can say, "I don't think possession of marijuana should be a crime, even though this dude was clearly caught with a pound of weed. So, not guilty then." That is an example of nullification. But a juror who says, "I'm not going to send a black man to jail" is doing something quite different.
Click to expand...

A juror can decide a case on whatever basis they like. That is the ruling by the supreme court and defacto law.
 
PirateMk1 said:
A juror can decide a case on whatever basis they like. That is the ruling by the supreme court and defacto law.
Click to expand...

Uh, I'm going to need some sources for that. Because, as recently as January, the Ninth Circuit upheld appeal and reaffirmed these instructions to a jury: "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task." The next few lines were stricken, where the instructions say Jury Nullification does not exist, because that is a it's own thing and different than what you are talking about.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Uh, I'm going to need some sources for that. Because, as recently as January, the Ninth Circuit upheld appeal and reaffirmed these instructions to a jury: "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task." The next few lines were stricken, where the instructions say Jury Nullification does not exist, because that is a it's own thing and different than what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

First Chief Justice John Jay wrote for a unanimous court in Georgia Vs. Brailsford 1794 3 US 1, that juries may judge not only the facts but the law in question. The 4th Circuit appellate court said similar in US vs. Moylan.
 
PirateMk1 said:
First Chief Justice John Jay wrote for a unanimous court in Georgia Vs. Brailsford 1794 3 US 1, that juries may judge not only the facts but the law in question. The 4th Circuit appellate court said similar in US vs. Moylan.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that's called jury nullification.

That is different than agreeing someone broke a law (or breaking your juror's oath and not considering the evidence presented) and not convicting them where you would convict someone else who did the same thing.
 
PirateMk1 said:
First Chief Justice John Jay wrote for a unanimous court in Georgia Vs. Brailsford 1794 3 US 1, that juries may judge not only the facts but the law in question. The 4th Circuit appellate court said similar in US vs. Moylan.
Click to expand...

judge not only the facts but the law in question.
Click to expand...
so which is skin color?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Yeah, and that's called jury nullification.

That is different than agreeing someone broke a law (or breaking your juror's oath and not considering the evidence presented) and not convicting them where you would convict someone else who did the same thing.
Click to expand...

No its not. One and the same.
 
Lovebug said:
so which is skin color?
Click to expand...

The juror has the choice convict or not. That authority is absolute. Facts don't matter if juror doesn't want them to.
 
PirateMk1 said:
The juror has the choice convict or not. That authority is absolute. Facts don't matter if juror doesn't want them to.
Click to expand...

So justice isn't blind? Isn't that what so many people of color are saying?
 
PirateMk1 said:
No its not. One and the same.
Click to expand...

No, in fact, it isn't. You should educate yourself on what jury nullification actually is.

There can be no decision against the weight of the evidence if the evidence was simply rejected in the first place. Further, rejecting said evidence based on arbitrary criteria (skin color, no less!) Is an absolute abridgement of justice and a violation of the oath each juror swears before joining a jury.

Walking into a courtroom and saying "black = innocent, I'm out!" is not an example of jury nullification.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
No, in fact, it isn't. You should educate yourself on what jury nullification actually is.

There can be no decision against the weight of the evidence if the evidence was simply rejected in the first place. Further, rejecting said evidence based on arbitrary criteria (skin color, no less!) Is an absolute abridgement of justice and a violation of the oath each juror swears before joining a jury.

Walking into a courtroom and saying "black = innocent, I'm out!" is not an example of jury nullification.
Click to expand...

I've been on two juries. I can't recall ever swearing an oath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom