Thread: Question for U.S. lawyers or jurists

Originally Posted by JMS

I am just curious how many who have replied are bona fide lawyers?
One of my closest friends on SRP is a Lawyer, and I hope to here from him shortly.

Well, I've passed Civil Procedure 1 & 2, so I think I have a "basic" understanding of the justice system.

In that case, what does the concept of jury nullification entail? I've heard people mention it with the implication that the jury -can- provide a verdict, based on whether they agree with the law or not.

Originally Posted by Bruno

In that case, what does the concept of jury nullification entail?

Well, the judge instructs the jury, and a judge can throw out a verdict, although that's pretty rare, but when the jury goes to deliberate their verdict, it's 100% up to them how they actually rule. It's sort of an honor system.

So basically it entails having a defense attorney try to convince a jury to vote against the law in his closing arguments (although I seem to vaguely recall a movement to make this illegal a few years ago. Don't know if that ever went anywhere)

Or, it could entail a juror or jurors with strong views against the law in a particular case trying to convince other jurors to vote in spite of the facts because they think a law is unjust.

That's why there is such a lengthy process to screen jurors before a trial, and alternate jurors if one has to be removed, and heavy penalties for attempting to tamper with a jury.




Also, , I want to address the comment about wondering how many people who responded were actually lawyers. I think it's a valid question, and I also understand why the original post was directed at lawyers. However, if only lawyers responded, this would be a pretty pointless thread. (Unless I missed it, no actual members of the barr have responded)

Also, my personal belief is that it is the responsibility of every citizen of a civilized nation with a modern legal system to stay informed about such topics within their particular country. So, just because a person isn't an actual lawyer, doesn't mean that they haven't done their homework. Of course, maybe that's just the Eagle Scout in me.....

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

(Unless I missed it, no actual members of the barr have responded)

IIRC Matt (mhailey) is a lawyer.

I am not a lawyer, but if I were on a jury and thought the law was being mis-applied for whatever reason or if I thought it was an unjust law I would have no moral issue in negating that law. The law is printed text, people are human and therefore of much more value.

A juror has no ability to nullify a law. They are present only to determine the facts. They make a decision on whether a fact occurred or not. (was a person's ability to drive a motor vehicle impaired, was the person actually operating the motor vehicle, ...) They make the factual determinations of the case, not the application of the law. Now, they can make factual determinations such that a law will not apply, but they cannot nullify a law.

Matt

Edit: Bruno, as to Jury nullification, an example of this concept can be seen in cases of spousal abuse, where the abused wife kills her husband while he is sleeping, and claims self defense. she admits that he was asleep, she took the gun and shot him, that she thought about what she was doing, and carried out the murder. Under the letter of the law, she committed 1st degree murder, and self defense does not apply. For self defense to apply she had to be under and immediate threat of severe bodily harm, and this is not the case because the person she shot (I won't call such an abuser a victim but that is for another thread) was asleep. The jury nonetheless finds her innocent based upon self defense, determining that her mental state somehow fit under the self defense guidelines. It is clearly the wrong determination based upon the letter of the law, but they make factual determinations such that the law does not apply. In these instances the Judge can, and sometimes will, overturn the jury's determination because it is blatantly wrong under the letter of the law.

Matt

Originally Posted by ChrisL

I've yet to serve on a jury but I know people who have.

My understanding has been that the role of a jurors in a trial is to apply the law one is being charged with, consider the facts known in the case as supporting the defendant's guilt or innocence in relation to the law which was "broken" by the defendant. The law is the law.

I'm confused by a pamphlet I came across called "The Citizen's Rule Book"

In a nutshell, the way I understand this pamphlet, if a juror or a jury believe that a LAW is unsound, unconstitutional, etc, they can declare the defendant not guilty regardless of how cut and dried the law reads and regardless of how clearly facts may implicate a defendant as breaking that law. In effect, a juror or jury not only decide the fate of the defendant in relation to the trial, but they also can decide whether the LAW related to the case should be followed or nullified for that case.

Is this true? I realize I'm probably using incorrect legal terms in my descriptions and maybe I'm way off base her and my interpretation of the role or rights of a juror are incorrect, but I'm looking for clarification.

Thanks.

Chris L

Chris, more info for you: Jury Nullification and the Rule of Law

and this site looks interesting: Fully Informed Jury Association http://www.fija.org/ (similar to the "Citizen's Rule Book" but independent from it, as far as I can tell).

I have served on three juries, once as an alternate, once as a foreman, and one week sequestered with eleven people who don't like me much. I believe a juror should cast his or her vote based on what he or she feels is RIGHT. In one of my trials, the definition of "torture" became an issue. As that one has been around the park, I used my own judgment, and not what others told me I had to think. As a juror, you aren't the lowest in the food chain; you are the highest. Everything that comes after serves only to either confirm or refute YOUR judgment. YOU SHOULD TRY TO GET IT RIGHT, AND NOT COUNT ON THE APPEALS PROCESS TO FIX YOUR MISTAKES. (Yes, I feel pretty strongly about that.)

I'm not a lawyer but I was on the other side as a Law Enforcement Officer and in the end the jury can do whatever they wish. If the guy is as guilty as sin and the evidence proves it but the jury decides to acquit then that's what they can do. if one juror will not listen to reason and is pig headed for one reason or another unless you can prove he was compromised you just have a hung jury and retry the case.

The reason why we have citizen jurors and not a tribunal of sorts is so the jury can apply common sense and reason and compassion to deliver a fair verdict for all parties concerned. remember our system in the U.S is based on the premise that 100 guilty people go free rather than convict 1 innocent man. Does that work? I'm not so sure but at least we don't have a system where the accused is presumed guilty and must prove his innocence.

You do know that the only difference between a barred lawyer and a regular person is 1: they have passed the bar and 2: they have gone to law school and have a JD. In some states #2 is actually not required, however, it is extremely rare.

And as they say, a lawyer is just someone trained to think critically and write and talk persuasively. You actually don't learn the statutory law of the state your going to practice law in, in law school. So really, an expert on the justice system would probably be an even better authority on the question than a lawyer or a law student.