YSK about Jury Nullification, if you're an American and you don't, look it up.
YSK about Jury Nullification, if you're an American and you don't, look it up.
[Jury Nullification] is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust
Until the wealthy and powerful are held to account, why punish your fellow everyday citizens? Use your brain. Decide if what they're charging people with is suppression or actually keeping society safe.
When those prosecutors start losing these cases, maybe they will start to rethink who they are focusing on.
But remember if you're on jury selection, you don't know what jury nullification is.
You are meant to "nullify" silently.
you can say you show bias towards the case, by citing any reasons, you will get strike from the juror pool most of the time .additionally, they dont even pay you well for your time, you can easily lose alot money a day for not working your job, in alot of places they can pay you a pittance of 5-15/day, in cali its 15 only a day. theres also the issue that your job will not look kindly for missing a lot of days.(despite what the law says the employee cant retaliate) they can do other things.
Apparently you can get in trouble for lying on those questionnaires
You could have read about it the day after getting elected to the jury so....
Sure. Good luck proving it.
If you find yourself on jury duty in a very specific case (you know which one) you should know about this but pretend like you don't.
Conversely, it's a great way of getting out of jury duty if you mention it during jury pool selection in criminal cases - the prosecution will kick you out as quickly as possible. It's why I haven't served on a jury for over thirty years.
There's miscarriages of justice every day in this country. We need this attitude in cases where they're trying someone for no charge other than resisting arrest just as much as that specific case.
in the courts thats true, like what is the circumstances of the accused, "the city targetting AA people preferentially and prosecuting them in quick sucession, like with luigi yes he isnt AA, but hes part of the class that challenged the ruling class. compared to a white person which they almost always become to careful not to charge them too quickly. in many cases the courts often try try to charge people on circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony.
Unpopular take but despite it being a popular thing, we want jury nullification to come from individual conclusions that this law does not apply despite the circumstances, and not because they know they can. Every study ever has shown that people who know about jury nullification tend to dismiss evidence more often, and are more easily deceived by a sympathetic/ non-sympathetic looking defendant. It's not even a law, it's the result of the fact juries can't be prosecuted for their decisions so really they can do whatever they want. This is enough to know that technically you can "nullify the law". That goes both ways, people can convict without evidence
Saying the law doesn't actually apply despite the person having done the thing the law says not to do is very different from saying the punishment should be nil. This could also keep you from ever serving on a jury and telling others about this in certain circumstances could be a crime. All the legal minds who looked into this agree it should still remain a thing, but it shouldn't be told to jurors explicitly. When you serve you swear to uphold the law, so it's tricky to nullify without
purgeryperjury except for very very special cases.This is not a good YSK, you should understand what the law is as a juror. You could in theory reword this entire post without actually using the term and that would probably be helpful, but super complicated to write.
Esit: I'm team Luigi (in mario kart of course)
That goes both ways, people can convict without evidence
There's a fail safe for this, a judge can override a juries guilty vote but not a ruling of innocence.
Still, not ideal because it comes down to one person not agreeing with the jury, but at least there is some protection
IANAL, but it sounds like a "JNOV" could allow the judge to basically throw out a jury decision, regardless of what it is. It's just that they almost never use it because, as long as the jury hasn't been compromised or manipulated in some way, they respect the jury system.
IMO almost everyone (who knows about lemmy) knows about jury nullification. But the real risk people should know about is this JNOV ruling. I could envision a Trump appointed judge trying to use it nefariously in the near future.
so it’s tricky to nullify without purgery except for very very special cases.
Assuming you meant perjury, it is not tricky in the slightest. You vote your conscience and don't say something stupid like "I lied during voire dire, nyah ah ahhh!".
we want jury nullification to come from individual conclusions that this law does not apply despite the circumstances, and not because they know they can.
There is an ongoing shift towards fascism, and at least for now the courts still have power over whether or not people get to walk free.
So there is more to it than your letting on. We're gonna see cases of people who have done illegal things because the fascists in power decided to make existence defacto illegal for people.
An example of this is the bans on transgender people from using bathrooms other than their assigned sex. If I'm ever a juror on a case like that, I'm fucking voting not guilty, and everybody else should too.
That goes both ways, people can convict without evidence
This doesn't seem right... My understanding of jury nullification is that it ends with the charges being dismissed. I didn't think it went both ways. Like, I don't think a jury can say, "we know there isn't evidence that this person is guilty, but we want to put them away anyway."
Like, I don’t think a jury can say, “we know there isn’t evidence that this person is guilty, but we want to put them away anyway.”
The can, but if the judge isn't a total douche, they would just overrule the jury. Not to mention, it could be appealed. The guilty version of nullification is much weaker.
That goes both ways, people can convict without evidence
The guilty form of nullification is much weaker. A judge can overrule the jury. The case could be appealed.
In contrast, a non-guilty verdict is final, there is no way overturn it and there is no appeals.
This is really important. You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.
In addition, sentencing is (usually) separate from conviction and is the judge's decision, although a jury can recommend a sentence. If someone is found guilty of theft for stealing a loaf of bread, they're not going to get 20 years in jail except in musicals.
IMO, nullification should be used as an absolute last resort. Have a sympathetic defendant accused of second degree murder? Knock it down to a lower-level manslaughter and find them guilty. The sentencing of that might have a low maximum.
There are only a few rare problems that actually need nullification. It (generally) shouldn't just be used for laws that you disagree with. One such problem is mandatory sentencing minimums. If someone steals that load of bread and they've already been convicted twice for theft or other crimes, they may be subject to things like 3-strike laws and get a sentence that is WAY more than they deserve, and the judge can't do anything about it. The judge might feel that they deserve to give only 20 hours of community service as a sentence, but they legally have to sentence the convicted to 6 months in prison. Nullification is probably warranted there. Someone found with 1.25 ounces of marijuana in a state where only 1 ounce is legal, so they get charged with a drug distribution felony? And the judge/prosecutor refuses to lower the charge? Maybe find them not guilty. But it should be the last resort, not the first option.
You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.
No, it can often be a good reason. I disagree with laws that would make it illegal for trans people to use their preferred bathroom. They punish women for not being feminine enough, it forcibly outs trans people. It's dangerous and stupid.
Anybody who votes not guilty in such a case is right to do so.
You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.
And what if the law is "trans people cannot exist"?
That too far-fetched for you (it really shouldn't be at this point but whatever), then what if you were on a jury in the south during Jim Crow?
It's about disagreeing with patently unjust laws.
It's also worth knowing how to do it, as it isn't exactly straightforward.
https://beyondcourts.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Jury-Nullification-Toolkit-English_0.pdf
If make it known that you know about it, or you are intentionally doing it, you could face legal issues.
they can threaten you, but they cant force you to choose a verdict other than what the prosecutors want, which is choosing not-guilty in despite of the evidence.
this is in light of Luigi Mangione's recent court appearance isn't it?
Yep.
You should be applying this to all juries you serve on. Accept those summonses. Get on those juries and use your brains.
they choose jurors specifically that wont "jury nullification" i know quite a few people who were chosen on the basis: if you dont question thier authority(the ones choosing jurors), they love the pushovers, the retirees and govt workers, because they know they have nothing else to do".
other issues if the judges ego is not stroked: you're trying to get out of jury duty, they might force you to be on one regardless. i know subreddit and a forum that has a whole discussion around jury duty for each state/city. apparently some states are so desperate for jurors, they ignore most excuses.
I think the judge can override the jury though, right? Ianal, but I thought the judge could do that for any case.
The judge cannot declare someone guilty if the berson pleads innocent. The judge can say not guilty and dismiss a case.
That's good to know if you live in
NY.the area he's being tried.Edit: I realized that I don't know where he's being tried.
The judge cannot. They can prejudice the jury severely through unequal treatment of evidence, witnesses, and through clearly showing their bias at trial, which in practice can affect the verdict dramatically. On the other hand, doing that makes it a lot easier to overturn the verdict on appeal.
The case which unequivocally established the right of juries to countermand the judge was fucking wild.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushel's_Case
The judge was putting William Penn and William Mead on trial for leading an unlawful religious assembly. The jury found the defendants, basically, guilty of "speaking," but not of the crime they had been accused of. The judge blew his stack and ordered the defendants to be tied up (?) and the jury imprisoned without food, water, or heat. After two days with no food, the jury returned, and amended their verdict to "not guilty." The judge got pissed again, ordered the jury to be fined (?) instead, and one of the jurors said he definitely wasn't paying that, and appealed the whole judgement. The trial involved some physical violence in the courtroom when the judge would order something to happen and the person involved would tell the judge to fuck off and then resist the people who came in to try to enforce the ruling.
The appeals court sided with the jury. People remember Bushel (the juror) and his name is remembered as linked with the principle of law, and all people remember about the judge was that he was an asshole.
The irony is, despite there being a plaque celebrating it in the old bailey, people have been arrested for holding signs directly quoting that plaque.
I will also warn that you are likely committing perjury when they ask at the jury if they have an inability or refusal to follow the instructions or the law of the judge. Now this is difficult to prove, but it's not something risk free
You'd think so, but no. You cannot be punished as a juror for voting your conscience. So long as you don't say "I intentionally lied during voir dire to sabotage due process" they cannot even ask you why you voted the way you did unless you volunteer for questions afterwards.
If you actually believe that the person your judging does not deserve punishment, then this is a risk that you should be willing to take.
That is not actually true.
The right to a jury trial is guaranteed to the accused by the constitution. You are empowered by that constitution. You owe a constitutional duty to the accused; not to the court, judge, or government.
The law is not limited to the acts of Congress and the States that the defendant is accused of violating. When the judge asks if you can follow the law, you are free to remember that the "Constitution is part of that law.* Where legislated law is in conflict with your constitutional responsibulity, your responsibility supersedes that legislation entirely.
Nah, I'm good lol
Not sure why you’re trying to give up your rights, but ok.