Printable View
If I'm ever on trial, I hope there is at least one intelligent pig-headed person on the jury. :hmmm:
Each of the juries I served on brought unanimous guilty verdicts, but there was a very sharp disagreement as regards the sentencing in one of them. I was the pig-headed hold-out, and it was like a week in hell. I believe I did the right thing, and the victim's statement to the press when it was all over confirmed this to me.
You and me both.Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
I get what you're saying, but something in principal seems wrong there; I know this is an extreme theoretical stretch, but say we were to have an overzealous corrupt power mad government and there was a law passed which called for the execution of anyone who was heard to disagree with whatever current administration was in office. Say the law was very cut and dried on that. Say someone was charged with breaking that law and tried. Say the FACTS confirmed that the person did in fact make statements opposing the current administration. On a jury, as a citizen, you're saying then that every member of that jury would be required to vote guilty? If that example is weak from a legal or realistic perspective, please let your mind wander then and come up with an equally wildly absurd, potentially dangerous but theoretically possible law and apply it here.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Very powerful statement, Norm. I can just see if you were there with Jefferson and Franklin you'd get a "hear hear!" from them!Quote:
Originally Posted by norman931
Chris L
Thanks for these links. I've only worked through the first one, but it's very helpful. Here are some excerpts from the first link you've given that seem to support that Citizen's Rule Book:Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
"On the other hand, does a jury have the power and the right to nullify the law? Would nullification be a violation of the principle of the rule of law? Yes, and no, respectively. It is common today for judges to tell prospective jurors that they must apply the law as he gives it to them and that their business is simply to determine whether the defendant has broken the law or not. But that is not what was intended by the right to trial by jury in the Bill or Rights. Thomas Jefferson said in 1782 (Notes on Virginia):
...it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.Then, recommending trial by jury to the French in 1789, Jefferson wrote to Tom Paine, "I consider...[trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution...."
One may say that Jefferson is not talking about nullification, but just about a jury taking the interpretation of the law into its own hands -- though that is already well beyond what a jury is allowed to do now, especially if a jury undertook to apply its own interpretation of the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, we have the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, in Unites States v. Dougherty, 1972, saying:
[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.Indeed, if juries do not have the right and power to nullify the law, we must face the fact that Harriet Tubman, one of the great heroines of American history, would and should have been guilty of multiple federal crimes by violating the fugitive slave laws. That is a morally revolting prospect, but judges today who reject nullification must confess that they would enforce the fugitive slave laws and convict Harriet Tubman. If they were to honestly admit as much, and hold themselves powerless to disobey unjust and morally despicable laws, they should be told that "obeying orders" was not accepted as a defense in the Nazi war crime trials at Nuremberg."
Chris L
The jury is going to vote how it wants. Now, the jury can do one of two things in that situation. Apply the law as it is and sentence the person to death, which btw, in a democracy, they probably voted for. Or, they can see the unrighteousness of the action and vote for acquital even though the defendant is clearly guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
In criminal law, once acquitted its over, no double jeopardy. In civil law, theres appeals. That said, I haven't taken crim pro yet so...I don't know if the jury's verdict is the final judgment. Also, if they are given questions to answer: say... did he say the phrase that will get him killed? They can answer no, even if the guy admitted to saying it. Thus, the fact would be found that no, the guy did not say it, therefore he is innocent.
The guy can also appeal his sentence and the appellate court will overturn the unconstitutional law because it is cruel & unusual punishment.
The issue with the theoretical law you provided is that it is clearly unconstitutional. However, if the law is constitutional, and crazy, then yes, the Jury should be compelled to provide a determination of guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
Take my example above with the perpetually abused wife that shoots her abusing husband while he sleeps. She is guilty of 1st degree murder, and a Jury should be compelled to provide a determination of guilty. If there is enough outrage over such a case, then the legislative branch of the government should pass a law which qualifies this type of "justified homicide" if that is the will of the people.
The beauty of our government is that everyone has a say in what goes on in government, and everyone's vote counts. Look at the last election and the dramatic shift in power, and the dramatic changes taking place. In a jury is not the place to challenge a law. If you want to challenge it, write your representatives/senators.
Matt
Do you say it's not the place to challenge a law because a jury is prohibited from doing so or are you saying that based on your philosophical opinion? I'm asking that in all seriousness since I am embarrassingly ignorant regarding the law. I'm trying to change that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Chris L
A jury cannot change the law. Its not in the constitution. The legilature and the judicial branch can change laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
edit: Think about it. You really don't want to give 12 people that kind of power.... Like you said, they could be 12 whackos. Its a double edged sword. If the jury can challenge a law for its constitutionality, they can change a law to make it fit their version of the desired result. Thus, the slave owner would go free for doing something wrong because the 12 jurors are all slave owners and they have all done it themselves and they rallied around their fallen comrade.
There are always appeals, for both sides. Look at the trial/appeal of Joe Nacchio, Qwest CEO. Prosecution appealed a judicial ruling and prevailed on appeal. Also, there is no double jeopardy as it pertains to each sovereign, but you can be tried twice for the same crime by two difference governments. Look at the Rodney King trial, the cops were acquitted at the state level, but then the Federal government tried them and convicted them of violating his civil rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leighton
It seems that the main thing you are asking is whether a jury can nullify the effect of a law when its is contrary to the person's basic rights. in most of the hypothetical cases you will imagine, they will more than likely be unconstitutional, and in such a case the defendant's lawyer should be raising the argument that the law is unconstitutional, and the case would be dismissed, and no valid law would have been broken. The constitution is very important as it is the people's contract with the governments (both state and federal) in which we have given the governments their power over us. Without these Constitutions, the governments would not exist, and they would have no power. If the actions/laws of the government exceed the power we have given them, the such actions/laws have no effect and are unconstitutional. If the actions/laws fall within this power we have granted them, then there is absolutely no basis for a jury to nullify it. We gave them the power to pass the law, and if we the people don't like it, change it through the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.
Matt
Was it an interlocutory appeal or was he acquitted and then the prosecution appealed?
He said "challenge" the law, not change it. My question to Matt still stands and I see he answered it. Thanks for clarification, Matt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leighton
I agree with you, jury power does cut both ways in that you could have a wacko juror or wacko jury that would believe even abhorrent acts should be allowable. Personally, that possibility is not enough of an argument for me to feel that a jury's right to nullification, if the jury does have the right should be done away with. That argument has similar tone IMO to us giving up ALL civil liberties because some wacko individuals may wish to harm us with terrorist acts.
Chris L