[cardguy]

...if you watch this video:

[cardguy]

[Let's see is I can upload the video correctly this time!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ

The video is about Jury Nullifcation. Which is a secret constitutional right that Juries have (but are never told about). It allows the Jury to go on strike and find somebody not guilty - even if the evidence points to them being guilty of committing the crime they are charged with.

It is a way for Juries to protest against laws which they feel are unjust. And even knowing about it can be enough to get you kicked off a Jury.

[Dr. Howard]

thanks for fixing and I am no longer concerned about a jury duty card arriving in my mailbox. I am sure a lawyer RvF will tell me it is not so simple.

[Tytalus]

Hmmm.... Troll?

[assman]

(02-25-2014 02:27 PM)Tytalus Wrote:  

Hmmm.... Troll?

Nope. cardguy is right. You should know about jury nullification but the government will never tell you about it.

[runninutebball]

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

[Menace]

I'm not sure it's accurate to call this a constitutional right per se. It is not expressly stated anywhere in the US constitution that I'm aware of. This is more of a logical consequence of the two rules outlined in the video.

Secondly, let's say the jury does its nullification thing...the prosecution (presumably) can take advantage of FRCP 50 (federal rules of civil procedure; these were not around, by the way, during the civil war era to which this video alludes) and move for a JMOL (aka JNOV, judgment notwithstanding verdict).

Quote:

Rule 50. Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling
(a) Judgment as a Matter of Law.

(1) In General. If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may:

(A) resolve the issue against the party; and

(B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.
...

I am citing only part of the rule here. I know this whole nullification thing is very popular on the internet and is supposedly "forbidden knowledge," but there are plenty of procedural safeguards to circumvent jury nullification. All states have corresponding state rules of civil procedure that generally track the federal rules.

[Kickb]

Edit

[Veloce]

Interesting.

I was kicked off a jury about a month ago, pretty high profile case actually, for something like this.

I was an initial candidate and when we were going through the selection process the judge asked me if I felt that I could uphold the law. I said, "It depends on the situation. I'm capable of telling you whether or not this person broke this law, but if I don't agree with the law then I do not see the defendant as guilty." Another guy raised his hand behind me and said, "Yeah I agree with him."

We took a 15 minute recess and when we got back we both got booted. Thank god it was a 6 day trial over some truly ridiculous bullshit, and was an eye opener as to how much of our public resources are being wasted on trivial trials.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

I wrote an article on it. From what I've read, the judge might declare a mistrial in the case of jury nullification, but I'm not entirely sure.

http://www.returnofkings.com/4386/the-la...er-justice

[tarquin]

A few years back I pissed off a judge by mentioning jury nullification (outside of a courtroom proceeding, of course). She was black and I almost started talking about jury nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act, but I decided I wanted to keep my career more than I wanted to put my foot in my mouth.

[vinman]

Nullification is a hot topic in Libertarian circles right now. There are a few web sites devoted to it.

[svenski7]

A guy in my hometown was convicted of a felony for telling fellow jurors to call "1-800-TEL-JURY" and inform themselves regarding nullification.

The rumor is that, if you tell the selection committee that you are "friends with Frank," they will immediately dismiss you.

[cardguy]

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

I am no expert in this area. So I can't say exactly what is right and wrong here.

Just thought it would make for an interesting topic. Plus - the video in my original post is very well put together.

@svenski7 - saying you are "friends with Frank" can get you kicked off Jury duty? I have searched Google and seen no mention of that. I am interested in hearing more about that.

[cardguy]

(02-25-2014 03:13 PM)Emmanuel Goldstein Wrote:  

I wrote an article on it. From what I've read, the judge might declare a mistrial in the case of jury nullification, but I'm not entirely sure.

http://www.returnofkings.com/4386/the-la...er-justice

Thanks for the tip - I will check out your article.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

From my research for the article, you could get in trouble for telling other jurors that they can nullify, and also for telling the court that you voted not guilty as part of your right to jury nullification. If you are going to use it, don't tell the court.

I also asked two smart lawyers about it and neither knew anything about it. Neither was a criminal litigator, but it's clear that law schools don't teach it. Most conspiracy theories are bullshit, but the government has brazenly and clearly enacted a mass cover up of the right to jury nullification.

[Menace]

(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.

[cardguy]

@Emmanuel Goldstein - I just read you article. Brilliant stuff. Very powerful. And very interesting.

A +1 is heading your way.

[cardguy]

Also - I read that Johnny Cochrane spoke about jury nullification in the closing argument of the OJ Simpson trial.

Well - I just watched it on YouTube and he never raises the subject. Although he does lay into the LAPD and talk about punishing them for their corruption and racism.

Other people say he flirted with the idea of jury nullification (apparently this is how the legal pundits at the time read it) in his closing argument. I guess he would have gotten in trouble if he raised the concept openly. But - to be honest - I don't think he was really trying to subtly suggest the idea to the jury. Or if he was - it went over my head - even though I sat through the argument looking for allusions and references to the idea.

[redpillrage33]

Here in the Great White North, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized jury nullification as being "'the citizen’s ultimate protection against oppressive laws and the oppressive enforcement of the law'" and "as a 'safety valve' for exceptional cases".

It won't ever be mentioned by the Court or the lawyers at trial, however.

It's the third issue discussed in the Latimer case (paras. 57-70): http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc...6/index.do

[cardguy]

In the UK - jury nullification has been used to protect whistleblowers who have published state secrets in the name of the public good.

That seems to be the area where jury nullification comes up alot.

[Suits]

At the end of the day, what are the odds of you being able to convince the entire fellow jury to go this route?

[Kickb]

Hope I get chosen for the El Chapo trial so I can use my powers of nullification.

[svenski7]

(02-25-2014 03:55 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

@svenski7 - saying you are "friends with Frank" can get you kicked off Jury duty? I have searched Google and seen no mention of that. I am interested in hearing more about that.

Hey cardguy,

Sorry, I wasn't very clear about that. Frank (not going to put his last name on here) is kind of local celebrity. He ran for mayor a few times (after felony conviction), he dressed up in a jail jumpsuit and handcuffs to protest during the Snowden leaks and he gets on the local AM radio stations and rants and raves about everything under the sun.

Due to his felony conviction and some protests at/near the courthouse, he is well known to all of the lawyers and judges inside. Its a small city of 30,000 so saying, "I know Frank T." at jury selection will get you the boot. I plan on trying it.

Quote:

From my research for the article, you could get in trouble for telling other jurors that they can nullify, and also for telling the court that you voted not guilty as part of your right to jury nullification. If you are going to use it, don't tell the court.

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

[assman]

(02-25-2014 06:44 PM)Suits Wrote:  

At the end of the day, what are the odds of you being able to convince the entire fellow jury to go this route?

It happens. A Florida gun owner who came up to NYC but forgot he had his gun in his car was charged with NYC's ridiculous gun possession law. Jury voted not guilty and freed him, despite there being no question that he had in fact broken the [bullshit] law.

Even if you don't convince the rest, a hung jury isn't a terrible alternative if you think the law is unjust or the application of the law to that particular case is unjust. Prosecutor can retry the case, but for a low level case, may decide it's not worth the resources.