Thread: Question for U.S. lawyers or jurists

I'm just going to point out this glaring flaw in the argument using Adams and then bow out again.

Your quote from 1771 is before the Constitution was written.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

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.

First of all, the quote by Adams is from 1771 when he was still practicing as an attorney. He didn't become President until 1797.

Second, Adams drafted (about 1779) the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the oldest functioning written constitution in continuous effect in the world, which had a big influence on the United States Constitution written ten years later. Based on this, I believe Mr. Adams knew a thing or two about constitutionality.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

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

I think that is the entire point! If the whole, or part of the jury believe that, for whatever reason, the applied law is bad or unconstitutional then they have the right and duty to disagree with the direction of the court. That is what checks and balances are meant to do.

Otherwise, as ChrisL mentioned, why did the founders even bother putting trial by jury into the Constitution? If you really believe that individuals are so irrational that they are incapable of making good decisions within the framework of the law, then why bother with them? Just let the Judge (apparently cut from a different cloth than the rest of us) make the decision.

But I think the founders didn't see it that way. They believed that someone had to watch over the judicial system, and not just the legislature and the executive. We seem to forget that our government has a fourth branch - the People.

Anyway, this is ChrisL's thread and I think I've said more than enough, so I will bow out as well. Enjoyed the chat!

P.S. - The English Bill of Rights of 1689 (written long before the Adams quote of 1771) which included "trial by jury," had a tremendous influence on both John Adams when he drafted the Massachusetts Constitution, and the other framers when they formed the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Great thread, fellas! Here's one of my favorite lines from Mr. Dickens:

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

I object! Been doing it in the courtroom for 31 years. When you have it figured out....give a shout. Enjoyable thread. J

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

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.

I think our outlooks differ on a fundamental level. I don't intend to put words in your mouth so please correct me, clarify or elaborate on your opinion above, but I take your explanation to mean that to you, once enacted, the law is supreme at the time of a trial. No matter how abhorrent, seemingly ill conceived, for the exploitative gain of a few human beings at the abuse, torture and enslavement of many, the law, even if obviously wrong on a civil and even a gut level is not to be altered or nullified save for those governmental employees who have the sole authority to create such laws or save for those governmental employees who have according to you the sole authority to interpret and direct/order free citizens of this country to cast votes based only on said law pertinent to that case? Using your example of slavery and slave laws, maybe you could live with yourself either walking away from something like that or worse, upholding such a law with your vote in compliance with such a law, but I couldn't.

Again, maybe I'm off base on what you feel in regard to this.

It seems to me the founding fathers' intent was to give the citizenry of this country the power to keep the government in check rather than the other way around. I believe they intended on requiring a trial by a citizen jury for that very reason will full knowledge and intent that a jury had that power. It's so brilliant and so powerful that it really does inspire awe in me.

Chris L

In the case during which I was jury foreman, I took the vote anonymously. Each juror wrote guilty or not guilty on a piece of paper which was then folded. I thought it was important that peer pressure not play a part in our decision.
The foreman in the other trial just asked for a show of hands. Out of 12 people, how many do you think will automatically align with the majority? Then once the hands go up, you're committed. I didn't like the way he handled it.

Wow. Now I've read the thread...what a thoughtful and fun exercise.
Juries are, I should point out, there (as is my understanding) also to keep the judge (a finger in the stong hand of the sovereign!) from applying the laws unfairly. I never thought of their original purpose to interpret laws. Of course, they do. They argue over what the judge said, what he meant, then they get further instructions, then they argue some more. Sometimes, there is just that one hold out simply saying "I just don't think it's RIGHT." That those two rebels (jefferson and adams) thought that these simple lay-people should exercise -gasp- independent thought on the level of lawyers and judges....well, I'm simply shocked and appalled!

I wish I had something more to add...but this has been a lot of fun.
I don't often get to hang out in the interesting brainy-philosophical side of the law that made me fall in love withthe area of study in the first place. I enjoy these opportunities, though.

Here is a case where the Jury found against the plaintiff, and the Judge threw out the Jury's verdict and ordered a new trial.

Florida Woman Loses Arms, Legs After Misdiagnosis - Incredible Health - FOXNews.com


Matt


ps. it is from Fox News, so some of you will dicount it completely just for that reason.

Originally Posted by mhailey

Here is a case where the Jury found against the plaintiff, and the Judge threw out the Jury's verdict and ordered a new trial.

Florida Woman Loses Arms, Legs After Misdiagnosis - Incredible Health - FOXNews.com


Matt


ps. it is from Fox News, so some of you will dicount it completely just for that reason.

That is an interesting case. Though I haven't read it thoroughly yet, it seems as if there is OVERWHELMING evidence that SOMEONE or some COMBINATION of someones screwed up horribly (that is a very technical legal term). The jury seems to have been unable to pick the exact persons responsible from among many defendants (I think, again, haven't looked to deeply into it), and thus found no liability? Hmmm...odd.


And don't worry about Fox news. It was reported in real news sources as well. [ducks for cover] Just kidding guys...some of my best friends are right wingers...[/unducks]

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 59 (LII 2007 ed.)

Might be interesting for some of you non lawyers/law students.