Thread: Question for U.S. lawyers or jurists

A couple more links for you:

ISIL -- A History of Jury Nullification

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/jdr...ield_recon.htm (Mansfieldization of juries)

Great thread, by the way. Thanks Chris.

Originally Posted by ChrisL

He said "challenge" the law, not change it. My question to Matt still stands and I see he answered it. Thanks for clarification, Matt.

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.

Chris L

I understand that, but what exactly do you mean by "challenge" the law if not to actually change the law and declare it unconstitutional? If by challenge the law you mean "We the jury hereby think this law is BS and think it should be abolished as it is clearly wrong. However, we can't do that so...he's guilty/innocent." ? Of course they *can* do that, but whats the point? Challenge means change to me.

I thought this (from the link above on Mansfielding) was interesting, referring to the "Fully Informed Jury" (link above in my earlier posting):


"There is already a movement and an organization devoted to informing jurors of their power and duty to review the law in a trial. However, its present leadership has adopted the mistaken doctrine that the duty of the jury is to render a verdict based on conscience and a natural sense of justice. That is incorrect. Jurors are judicial officers, just as much as the bench is, even if only for the duration of a trial. The Constitution provides that “... all judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” It is unconstitutional to have jurors take an oath to “follow the law as given by the judge” or words to that effect. Jurors should take the same oath the bench does, to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States [and of this State]”, or words to the same effect. Their duty is to the governing constitution, not to the presiding officer of the court, who is called “judge”, but shares the duties of judge with the jury when there is one. The duty of the jury is to do what a good judge is supposed to do, to decide the issues of fact, and to review the legal decisions of the bench in reaching their general verdict, deciding whether those decisions are authorized by the governing constitution and statutes, and returning a verdict of not guilty if they have a reasonable doubt about that."

The underlined sentence is basically telling us that the judge does not make the law, nor is she the final arbitrator of the law. Not that the jury has the right to change the law or interpret it as they see fit.

As a trial court judicial officer, they would be bound by the higher court btw.... Same as the trial judge.

I thought the underlined meant that jurors, as officers of the court, were bound to the Constitution, and not another officer of the court.

The impression that I am getting is that the originally intended role of juries, as having the final word in a trial, as the final checks and balances in a system based on checks and balances, has been insidiously diminished to a lesser role, or at least perceived that way. And this by the process of "Mansfieldization."

Originally Posted by honedright

I thought the underlined meant that jurors, as officers of the court, were bound to the Constitution, and not another officer of the court.

That's the way I interpreted it as well when I read it.

Chris L

Originally Posted by honedright

I thought the underlined meant that jurors, as officers of the court, were bound to the Constitution, and not another officer of the court.

We are all bound by the Constitution. Whether jurors must also follow the judge's direction is another question.

Anyway, the hypotheticals are getting to be too much for me. I'm bowing out of the thread.

Originally Posted by Leighton

Anyway, the hypotheticals are getting to be too much for me. I'm bowing out of the thread.

Awww, come on! Who else is going to play with us? Anyone?......................Anyone?

Chris L

UCJI

Uniform Civil Jury Instructions. These are the instructions that the judges give to juries prior to deliberation.

Say you are on a Jury for a DUII case. A possible instruction that you may be given is UCJI 22.01

Intoxication:
"The care required of a person who has become intoxicated is the same as that required of one who is sober. Failure by a person to use that degree of care which an ordinary prudent sober person would use under the same or similar circumstances would constitute negligence."

There are also UCJI for general instructions re evidence, weight, admissions, etc.

Basically when you go to trial you as a Plaintiff's lawyer, get the instructions together based on what you see as the issues that you want the jury to focus on. The instructions are there to direct them.

I am in Oregon, so I assume that other states have something similar to UCJI in there states.

Originally Posted by Leighton

A jury cannot change the law. Its not in the constitution. The legilature and the judicial branch can change laws.

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.

Why so much confidence in authority and not in the common people? Not exactly a foundational American sentiment.

I'd be less concerned about 1 whacko out of 12 peers in the jury box and more concerned about 1 whacko out of 1 behind the bench (or on the floor of the Legislature for that matter).