Thread: Question for U.S. lawyers or jurists

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

First off, I didn't actually read that because it sounds like a big waste of my time and it'll probably only get me angry at the authors.

The simple answer is no. The role of the jury is not to interpret the law, that is the judge's job. If the jury thinks that marijuana laws are stupid and against public policy, they cannot acquit the defendant for that reason. The role of the jury is to decide facts.

Example: The jury decides whether or not the defendant intended to distribute pot. The jury may also determine if the police in fact found pot on the defendant's person or if it was planted there. Those are questions for the jury.
The jury cannot just say "hey, we don't like this law, and you know what, even though that dude was running down the street carrying 1 kilo of marijuana and he was selling it to people as he went down the street...we'll still find him innocent because thats not how the law works."

Normally the jury is given a set of questions by the judge and the jury answers them. Then the judge applies the law and gives the verdict.

Sometimes its a little different, but the role of the jury is never to interpret the law, their role is to determine the truth, or at least come close. Now...I suppose an unscrupulous jury could collaborate and say that the dude really didn't have pot on his person even though 50 people saw him with it just to make a point... But, the judge can return a ruling notwithstanding the verdict; essentially overturning the jury's fact finding.

Sadly, I'm completely ignorant in this area. Thanks for the info.

Let's say a law is grossly unconstitutional and it happens to be a law pertaining to a case on trial. Does that mean then that the jury asks the judge to determine whether the law is constitutional? Maybe my question is this then; what if it's a bad law? By bad, I mean truly unconstitutional. Theoretically, if a jury somehow determines during the course of a trial that a law pertinent to the case is unconstitutional, the law is the law and the jury MUST decide based on the bad law? That seems to be against what my understanding of the founding father's intents were.

Chris L

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Sadly, I'm completely ignorant in this area. Thanks for the info.

Let's say a law is grossly unconstitutional and it happens to be a law pertaining to a case on trial. Does that mean then that the jury asks the judge to determine whether the law is constitutional? Maybe my question is this then; what if it's a bad law? By bad, I mean truly unconstitutional. Theoretically, if a jury somehow determines during the course of a trial that a law pertinent to the case is unconstitutional, the law is the law and the jury MUST decide based on the bad law? That seems to be against what my understanding of the founding father's intents were.

Chris L

edit: I suppose what I wrote below is a long winded way of saying, the trial judge applies the law, and only the appellate courts determine if its constitutional or not.

The judge must still apply the law to the facts. The loser will then appeal, and if the law is truly unconstitutional, they will overturn the entire law. If the appellate court affirms the trial court's ruling then the highest court gets a shot at it, and if they decide it is constitutional, then too bad. Thats the law and its constitutional, the loser and all that come after her must live with the law as interpreted until it is litigated again and reaches the highest court in that jurisdiction.

Remember there are state constitutions and a federal one. The US Supreme court can only hear matters of federal question or constituional issues.

So if one juror during a trial has some idea that a defendant is not guilty or should be considered not guilty because a law is suspect as to its validity, what happens to that juror if he maintains that stance? Other than probably getting harassed or getting punched by the other jurors that believe a defendant is guilty, want to find the defendant as such and just want to go home?

Chris L

Nothing the justice system can really do other than to keep sending the jury back to the voting area to hash it out and return a unanimous decision. Or to declare a hung jury and retry the case. I think some/most/all jurisdictions allow the judge to recuse a juror and call in a backup.

Some jurisdictions allow a guilty/liable finding on a majority vote of jurors. Never simple majority though.

On a side note, the ideals in that pamphlet are pretty common.

There is a rigorous process for screening potential jurors, and a variety of grounds on which a juror might be kicked out of the jury and replaced by a back-up. However, some nut-jobs still get onto juries, and there have been several well publicized cases where a defense lawyer argued for "jury nullification" in his closing remarks.

The reason a lawyer can get away with that, is that lawyers are allowed to say pretty much anything they want in their closing arguments. So, if a defense lawyer sizes up a jury and thinks that they might be swayed by arguments against a law, he/she may try it.

That's why the final word to the Jury comes from the judge. The last thing the Judge will do is "instruct the jury." This normally includes explaining what the law means, and a person would violate it, and instructing the jury that they may only consider evidence that was presented in the trial, etc.

edit* After reading JMS's response, I suppose I should point out that I am not a lawyer. I have seen jury trials first hand, however.

Twelve Angry Men with Henry Fonda, Lee J Cobb, EG Marshell and I could go on is a worthwhile courtroom drama on this topic. If you haven't seen it give it a look if you get the chance.

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.)