[assman]

(02-25-2014 06:57 PM)svenski7 Wrote:  

This is exactly what happened in the example of Frank. He tried to "inform" his fellow jurors during deliberations.

Do you know what law specifically he was charged with violating?

[assman]

(02-25-2014 03:02 PM)runninutebball Wrote:  

It's a dangerous tactic for the same reason that is dangerous for a president to decide which laws he feels like enforcing or just issuing new law by proclamation. It's also dangerous because it will erode respect for the court system. If it got bad enough, people would ignore the courts and it would be high noon at the OK corral in the streets. Obviously that's a worst case scenario. And all of this only applies to US jurisprudence

Spoken like a well-trained, well-behaved subject. The state is proud of you.

[svenski7]

(02-25-2014 10:45 PM)assman Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 06:57 PM)svenski7 Wrote:  

This is exactly what happened in the example of Frank. He tried to "inform" his fellow jurors during deliberations.

Do you know what law specifically he was charged with violating?

Jury tampering, I believe.

[Bad Hussar]

Slightly off-topic, but I'd be interested in members opinions:

What do you think of trial not by jury, but by judge? i.e. No right, or even possibility, of having a jury decide a defendants fate. There are countries that have judges only decide guilt/innocence and punishment. And, no, most of the are not regarded as totalitarian. In these systems there is always the right to appeal to a higher court.

I'm not a misanthrope, but I don't have a lot of confidence that random groups of 12 people have what it takes to properly weigh all the evidence in a complicated trial. I have a family member who is a judge (in a country without juries), and there's no way that a typical jury is going to have anywhere near the kind qualities he has and uses in deciding cases. It's not only a question of the law, which he obviously knows well, but also of having a particularly unusual set of personality traits that helps him be impartial (or at least appear that way). Honestly, the kind of personality needed to be a judge is rare. The patience of Job for a start ((TV judges like Judge Judy are exceptions here). Absolute impartiality. Juries aren't going to have these characteristics.

Aside from that, consider the economic impact of having so many people tied up in disruptive, non-income producing activities. Must cost many $Billions/year. I know that constitutionally it is impossible to change, but do you think it would be better to have trial by judge, rather than jury? If you were a defendant which would you prefer?

[The Beast1]

(02-25-2014 10:47 PM)assman Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 03:02 PM)runninutebball Wrote:  

It's a dangerous tactic for the same reason that is dangerous for a president to decide which laws he feels like enforcing or just issuing new law by proclamation. It's also dangerous because it will erode respect for the court system. If it got bad enough, people would ignore the courts and it would be high noon at the OK corral in the streets. Obviously that's a worst case scenario. And all of this only applies to US jurisprudence

Spoken like a well-trained, well-behaved subject. The state is proud of you.

I think we found our NSA sleeper!

[Wayout]

Serving on a jury is one of the honors of being a US citizen! It is the only time you have real power to make things right. Alas..I always get dismissed..((

[cardguy]

Alot of left-wing liberals in the UK who are in favour of closer ties with the EU don't realise that just about all of Europe does not have jury trials. Instead a judge tries the cases with no involvement from a jury. I think this would be a surprising fact for alot of the left-wingers here in the UK who assume everything is done better in Europe. And who assume that Europe is closer to being a left-wing utopia than the UK.

As for my own opinions. I am in favour of jury trials. The reason is that you have to have one part of the law enforcement process which is completely separate from the rest of the law enforcement process. Otherwise different government agencies can sink in the path of least resistance and become afraid to over-rule each other or scared to bother each other.

Whereas with a jury - they don't give a shit about the government or how much work is involved in trying the case. Or which bureaucrat's career might be affected by the outcome of the case.

And it is that independence from the instruments of the stater which I feel is worth defending.

Plus - a jury can only fuck up in two ways. It can let a guilty man go free.

Or it can send an innocent man to prison.

Luckily - if an innocent man goes to prison due to the incompetence of the jury - one hopes he will still be able to win again at appeal (with a different jury). So there is still a safeguard (of sorts) to protect against jury incompetence sending an innocent man to prison.

Still - the different approaches to the law around the world is fascinating. In 2001 - 94% of US Federal cases ended in a plea bargain. That is unheard of in the UK.

Equally - in Japan - 99% of those charged with a crime get convicted. Which is pretty bizarre as well. To my mind - these are more pertinent issues than those that surround whether or not we should keep jury trials.

Indeed - in the 1970's - the UK had Diplock courts (trial by judge and no jury). These were introduced to Northern Ireland for the trial of terrorism offenses. They were introduced to prevent jury intimidation.

But the main reason was to prevent "perverse aquittals" - since the juries would have been made up of many people who were sympathetic to the terrorists who were in the dock.

So - I can add the situation in Northern Ireland in the 1970's as being another case where jury nullification was a major issue.

[Sp5]

I tried a lot of cases before juries as defense counsel. It's a rush. It's a better system than European panels of judges - look at the chaos over the Amanda Knox trial. A jury is more likely to get it right - there are a lot of judges who are sick assholes.

When picking juries, it was always frustrating to have the guy or gal seated on the panel raise his hand and say "I don't think drugs should be illegal," or "I don't think the justice system is fair." STFU!

On the OJ trial, one thing most people don't know is that those morons Fuhrman and Vanatter fucked up and probably doctored evidence. For example, the alleged blood spatters on OJ's socks were symmetrical. How do you get symmetrical splatters on a pair of socks? You lay them out on a table, without ankles in them, and sprinkle blood on them.

[Bad Hussar]

Interesting replies Sp5 and Cardguy.

I suppose I just think it's easier to manipulate a jury than a good judge. Obviously there is the problem that the judge can be bribed, but there are ways of preventing that. And cases can be appealed and reviewed.

I mean, in a jury trial all you need is to influence one person in a certain way and it results in a not-guilty verdict. The problem I have is that the kind of influence could be completely emotional, and have very little to do with the case. A judge, hopefully, has the training and personality to be both impartial and not swayed by unrelated emotional appeals.

Cradguy:

What are your thoughts on why liberals in the UK would prefer trial by jury to trial by judge? Are they worried the judge and prosecutor will be in cahoots?l

[cardguy]

I know how liberals think. They have a certain vision of society - which involves empowering the people over authority.

And as such they would always pick jury trials over trial by judge.

As for the OJ Simpson case. I have read some books on it. Allen Dershowitz (one of the most famous lawyers in the world - and a guy who worked on the OJ Simpson case) pretty much says that OJ Simpson was probably guilty. But that the decision reached by the jury was the correct one.

You see - it is not just about convicting a guilty person for the crime they have comitted. It is also about making sure that the law enforcement authorities followed the correct rules and procedures in bringing together their case. And this is where the LAPD fucked up. They tampered with the evidence in an effort to frame up a guy they were sure was guilty.

It is better for a guilty man to go free than it is to allow the police to get away with such behaviour. As Dershowitz says - if you think that a guilty person being convicted is the most important thing - then presumably you would be in favour of the torture of criminal suspects? Since it is clear that fewer guilty people escape justice when the police are allowed to use torture to interrogate suspects.

I would love to be a defense lawyer. Since that lawyer's ONE goal is to get his client away with the crime he has committed - even if he is obviously guilty. It is like a sporting event - the only way the justice system can be safeguarded is if the defendent is guaranteed at least one person who will look for every nook, trick and scam to help get his client off the hook. Such lawyers are the most important safeguard we have from protecting people from tyranny by the state.

Defense lawyers are taught that it is better for a guilty person to get away with a crime than it is to have a system in which defense lawyers do not give 100% in their efforts to help their client escape justice. It is better to protect the system - than to throw it away in the name of a single criminal case. That oath is a crucial one - similar to that between a priest and somebody in confession.

So - paradoxically - if you were a defense lawyer you are literally the only person in the world who is correct in his desire to see as many 'bad' people get away with crimes as possible. And I like the idea of being able to think that way - and knowing that thinking that way is the absolute best thing you can do to help uphold the system of law and order.

Which is why Saul from 'Breaking Bad' is exactly the sort of lawyer that helps guarantee justice as opposed to supposedly subverting it.

[lurker]

(02-25-2014 04:23 PM)Menace Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 03:55 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

@Menace - I have read that JNOV only applies to civil and not criminal trials.

That's correct. I think there are criminal procedure analogs. A judge can set aside a jury's verdict and declare a man found guilty to be not guilty, but he cannot find someone guilty if the jury finds him not guilty (which I guess is the case we're talking about here).

Bottom line, I think there are both criminal and civil procedural ways to get around it, but it probably involves appeals and the courts do not want their dockets clogged with this stuff.

If a jury in a criminal trial finds a defendant not guilty, the case is done. The prosecution may not appeal. A judge, however, may direct a verdict of not guilty at the close of all evidence if it is clear that insufficient evidence exists to convict. Likewise, at the criminal appellate stage, sufficiency of evidence may be tested. (Approximately every time, give or take a few, the evidence is found sufficient. Don't rely on a criminal appeal.)

FRCP govern civil cases. The losing side may always appeal a civil verdict. Jury nullification doesn't really make sense in the civil context, because a jury isn't being asked to convict a defendant of a law they disagree with - in general, civil juries are asked to determine facts to apportion responsibility in a dispute over money. If you decide you have a moral aversion to the existence of contract law, jury nullification is probably the least of your tinfoil hat worries.

The analogue to FRCP are the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, most criminal prosecutions are at the state level, so FRCrimP don't apply - state rules of criminal procedure govern the action.

By the way, if you are a federal defendant, FRCrimP might as well read Rule 1: Get your ass to prison. AUSAs win something like 98% of federal criminal trials.

***In Scotland, things are different - there's a third verdict, called "not proven." It actually stems from an ancient jury nullification case. According to Wikipedia, 3/10 rape cases end in not proven verdicts. Why anyone would rape a Scottish girl is beyond me, but the law is interesting.***

[Tail Gunner]

(02-25-2014 03:02 PM)runninutebball Wrote:  

Jury nullification is not a right. It's a tactic to game the system by a portion of the jury, or even one if that person felt the law was unjust or just wanted to mess over the system. They do this by hanging the jury or by finding not guilty. A jury decision does not "nullify" a law unless that jury is the supreme court of the United States.

It's a dangerous tactic for the same reason that is dangerous for a president to decide which laws he feels like enforcing or just issuing new law by proclamation. It's also dangerous because it will erode respect for the court system. If it got bad enough, people would ignore the courts and it would be high noon at the OK corral in the streets. Obviously that's a worst case scenario. And all of this only applies to US jurisprudence

In a just society, I would agree with you. When a society becomes unjust and attempts to enforce unjust laws, however, the people (through the judicial system) should refuse to honor those laws.

It is a little known fact that before the American Civil War juries from northern states repeatedly refused to honor the laws of the slave states, which is why the underground railroad worked. All a slave needed to do was escape to the north, instead of traveling (twice as far) to Canada.

Read "Justice Accused" if you wish to know more:

http://www.amazon.com/Justice-Accused-An...0300032528

[runninutebball]

If you can get on a jury and you believe the law in question is unjust then by all means hang the jury. In the case of an unjust law (slavery), most people will say that's the right thing to do. But it is still a dangerous tactic if used incorrectly. What if one of your loved ones was killed in a terrorist attack but was acquitted because someone disagreed with US policy towards Muslims/middle east. That's extreme so what if the loved was killed in a mugging gone wrong but wasn't convicted because there was an anarchist on the jury or because the prosecution was seeking the death penalty and the juror believed that is unconscionable so they nullify. How would justice be served there? Jury nullification used to be used by racist whites in the south to keep other whites from being convicted of crimes against minorities. This tactic is a just a tool, a double edged one, so I'm sorry if I seem like a NSA lackey for suggesting that society is usually better off when this strategy is not encouraged.

I'm just pointing out that it doesn't nullify the law and someone in the jury pool shouldn't be surprised that they'll be struck from the pool if they articulate these views.

Just my opinion. Now please excuse me, I have to go listen to CardGuys phone calls and read his emails.

[Vicious]

(02-26-2014 02:40 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

I tried a lot of cases before juries as defense counsel. It's a rush. It's a better system than European panels of judges - look at the chaos over the Amanda Knox trial.

That has more to do with the nationalistic interest and media frenzy over the subject matter rather than the court system.

With all due respect we can't expect you to be completely objective in this. A defence counsel will almost always have a preference for a jury since such can be swayed more easily with circumstances compared to a legal professional.