Question for U.S. lawyers or jurists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

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).

---

I share your sentiment.

Today I went to my state's judicial website which had an FAQ area and a jury orientation video about 10 minutes long. Both the FAQ and the video seemed to be very adamant that a jury's role in a trial is to view the facts of the case and take any and all orders from the judge regarding the law and nothing else. I couldn't help but think: "Really then, why is the jury even there? Why can't a judge listen to both sides and be the sole decision maker?" Seriously, if a jury must obey the judge in all ways in regard to the judge's interpretation of the law and cast votes solely on the judges orders, why even waste my time sitting in a jury seat?

I've emailed my state's judicial area asking if in my state, Jury Nullification is even theoretically possible since it's not mentioned in the FAQ or in the jury video, or is it prohibited or even punishable?

Chris L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisL

I share your sentiment.

I couldn't help but think: "Really then, why is the jury even there? Why can't a judge listen to both sides and be the sole decision maker?" Seriously, if a jury must obey the judge in all ways in regard to the judge's interpretation of the law and cast votes solely on the judges orders, why even waste my time sitting in a jury seat?



Chris L

---

The U.S constitution "requires" a jury trial for criminal offenses. The courts have allowed for some leeway here, which is why you don't see them in motor vechile cases.

One thing I didn't see mentioned here is that jury deliberations are done behind closed doors. So although the judge instructs them to look only at facts and not to let personal feeling influence there decisions anyone who thinks this really happens is truly naive. And although a judge can grant a motion to overturn the juries verdict they are very relucant to do so in criminal cases because those are always appealed and the higher courts look at them with a fine tooth comb.

this has been a good distraction but back to getting ready for my evidence exam.

Wow, the law students come out of the wood work here.

RUN PEOPLE! THERE IS A BETTER WAY TO MAKE A DOLLAR THAN THIS!!!

Matt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisL

I share your sentiment.

Today I went to my state's judicial website which had an FAQ area and a jury orientation video about 10 minutes long. Both the FAQ and the video seemed to be very adamant that a jury's role in a trial is to view the facts of the case and take any and all orders from the judge regarding the law and nothing else. I couldn't help but think: "Really then, why is the jury even there? Why can't a judge listen to both sides and be the sole decision maker?" Seriously, if a jury must obey the judge in all ways in regard to the judge's interpretation of the law and cast votes solely on the judges orders, why even waste my time sitting in a jury seat?

I've emailed my state's judicial area asking if in my state, Jury Nullification is even theoretically possible since it's not mentioned in the FAQ or in the jury video, or is it prohibited or even punishable?

Chris L

---

NOTE: I've been busy, so I have NOT read this whole thread. I am admitted to the Bar in my state. I AM NOT an expert on this field, and OF COURSE, this isn't legal information, just my memory and thoughts.


Juries are finders of FACT. The reason they are to follow the judges' instructions are because the jusdge (theoretically) knows the law, and the juries are there as fact finders. IF you find A---you must find defendant Guilty, if there is reasonable doubt as to A, you must find defednent NOT GUILTY.

Jury nullfiication, in my (admittedly weak) memory, is usually not when the jury thinks the judge got the law incorrect, but when the guy is guilty under the law, but is let go because the jury's sense of fairness (or dislike of the defendent, the law, etc). If I have the time tonight, I'll read the whole thread and maybe even respond with some well thought out and reasoned response (probably not though!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhailey

Wow, the law students come out of the wood work here.



RUN PEOPLE! THERE IS A BETTER WAY TO MAKE A DOLLAR THAN THIS!!!



Matt

---

That's some funny stuff, right there. I went to law school because I find the law fascinating and I love to learn...now I'm stuck being a lawyer, though.

Thanks Matt. I think I understand your explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhailey

Wow, the law students come out of the wood work here.

RUN PEOPLE! THERE IS A BETTER WAY TO MAKE A DOLLAR THAN THIS!!!

Matt

---

Starting salary for a lawyer in my state is only 60k if lucky. A lot start at 40k. Top 10% *could* get large firm positions in the 100k range though. But they work crazy hours...

:OTI'm one of the few who want the 40-60 job, I plan to work for the government after law school. Ironicly I was making more when I started then I will be after graduation.

But there are times like these when I regret not taking the 100K engineering job

My 2 cents:

I agree with those who have written that juries are given the limited task of applying the law, as instructed to them by the judge, to the facts of the case, which come by way of witness testimony and other forms of evidence. The extreme examples offered by some are just too far-out to invite a considered reply. But on a more practical level, if I had been asked to serve as a juror during the time slavery was still legal, or when segregationist laws were still on the books, I would have had a very hard time applying the laws of those times to whatever the facts of the case were, since I would have been vehemently opposed to the law. In that situation, the proper thing to do would have been to advise the judge that I would not be able to apply the law as it was instructed, and I would have been excused from jury service. Same thing applies today: if at the start of a case (civil or criminal) you know you cannot apply the law because of your disagreement with it, or if you become cognizant of your inability to abide by the judge's instruction on the applicable law as the case proceeds, the correct thing to do is to advise the court of your inability to apply the law as given to you. There is no allowance made for folks to hear the law, disagree with it, and then disregard the court's instructions on applying the law to the facts of the case. I've tried a number of cases where potential jurors asked to be excused because of a religious-based objection to "judging others". Also, I've had potential jurors in cases involving alcohol intoxication ask to be excused from serving due to their extreme negative opinions with the concept of consuming alcoholic beverages.
By way of further analogy: In professional sports (or sports in general), the referee, umpire, etc. is given the limited assignment of applying the rules of the sport to the game. They do not have the power to say, for example: " I really don't like the 3 strikes and you're out rule, so I'm going to let this batter have 4 strikes." Or: "I think it's a shame the losing team ran out of time, so I'll add an extra 3 minutes to the game clock." The rules are not for the referee/umpire to disagree with or decline to apply. Same goes with the jury system.
That being said, if a juror who is intent on not following the judge's instructions about the law decides to hide his or her agenda and serves anyway, there is little that can be done if that juror decides to ignore the law. In the end, our justice system depends on jurors taking their oath of service seriously and with the solemnity that comes with the responsibility to carry-out this constitutional duty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

My 2 cents:

I agree with those who have written that juries are given the limited task of applying the law, as instructed to them by the judge, to the facts of the case, which come by way of witness testimony and other forms of evidence. The extreme examples offered by some are just too far-out to invite a considered reply. But on a more practical level, if I had been asked to serve as a juror during the time slavery was still legal, or when segregationist laws were still on the books, I would have had a very hard time applying the laws of those times to whatever the facts of the case were, since I would have been vehemently opposed to the law. In that situation, the proper thing to do would have been to advise the judge that I would not be able to apply the law as it was instructed, and I would have been excused from jury service. Same thing applies today: if at the start of a case (civil or criminal) you know you cannot apply the law because of your disagreement with it, or if you become cognizant of your inability to abide by the judge's instruction on the applicable law as the case proceeds, the correct thing to do is to advise the court of your inability to apply the law as given to you. There is no allowance made for folks to hear the law, disagree with it, and then disregard the court's instructions on applying the law to the facts of the case. I've tried a number of cases where potential jurors asked to be excused because of a religious-based objection to "judging others". Also, I've had potential jurors in cases involving alcohol intoxication ask to be excused from serving due to their extreme negative opinions with the concept of consuming alcoholic beverages.
By way of further analogy: In professional sports (or sports in general), the referee, umpire, etc. is given the limited assignment of applying the rules of the sport to the game. They do not have the power to say, for example: " I really don't like the 3 strikes and you're out rule, so I'm going to let this batter have 4 strikes." Or: "I think it's a shame the losing team ran out of time, so I'll add an extra 3 minutes to the game clock." The rules are not for the referee/umpire to disagree with or decline to apply. Same goes with the jury system.
That being said, if a juror who is intent on not following the judge's instructions about the law decides to hide his or her agenda and serves anyway, there is little that can be done if that juror decides to ignore the law. In the end, our justice system depends on jurors taking their oath of service seriously and with the solemnity that comes with the responsibility to carry-out this constitutional duty.

---

But Billy, to advise the court of your inability to apply the law as given to you, and then have yourself excused from jury service seems a direct failure to perform your duty, at least according to attorney, and 2nd Prez. John Adams:

He said, "It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

Are you disagreeing with Mr. Adams? I realize he hasn't practiced law in over two hundred and twelve years, but if he was correct in 1771, why would he be wrong today? Or, do you believe that he was wrong about the duty of juries in 1771? In your example of slavery laws, would it be better to hide your opinions, excuse yourself from jury duty and stand by to let an injustice continue? Or, better to remain on the jury and make your opinions count for something better?

Reminds me of Edmund Burke who said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

And what about Jefferson's opinion in 1789:

".....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."

According to how I understand your post, jurors should just do what they are told by the judge and nothing else. In spite of your conscience. But, and unless I am misunderstanding the two quotes above, at least two of our founding fathers seem to disagree with your opinion on the duty of juries.

But then, Adams and Jefferson were both treasonous rebels weren't they? ;)

Neither President Adams, nor any other president, has the constitutional authority to instruct jurors regarding whether they should follow or disregard the law. For example, President Regan and both President Bushes were personally opposed to abortion. However, they had no constitutional authority to tell jurors not to follow Roe v Wade (assuming there was a case where the jury was being asked to decide an abortion question) because of any personal disagreement with the law. So, yes, I am saying Adams was on constitutionally unfirm ground to suggest juries can disagree with the law given to them. If they cannot apply the law, they should asked to be excused from jury duty. Think of the alternative: if jurors were free to accept or reject the judge's instruction regarding the applicable law, there would be widespread chaos in our judicial system. Juries would simply apply their own personal judgments, and the law would be rendered meaningless. This is why the concept of jury nullification is so troubling. Our justice system is not designed to accomodate 12 different interpretations of the law. Mechanisms exist for changing the law, or for extracting justice where rote application of the law seems unjust. However, these mechanisms are not vested with the jury. They are assigned to judges and the legislature (and to the executive branch in certain instances, such as with pardons, etc.). Jurors simply don't have that right.