Thread: Question for U.S. lawyers or jurists

Originally Posted by ChrisL

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

Two responses: First, I'm not sure what laws on the books in this country qualify as "abhorrent, seemingly ill conceived, for the exploitative gain of a few human beings at the abuse, torture and enslavement of many". Altho there have certainly been times in the history of this country--including in the not too distant past, when folks thought it was perfectly ok to put people in jail for riding in the front of the bus, or for holding hands with someone of the same gender, etc, I don't think we've had the type of morally reprehensible laws that you posit on the books for quite some time now. Nonetheless, my answer is the same--if I had been asked to serve as a juror and was told at the start of the case what the case was about and what the law being applied was, and if I felt the law was unjust, I would have told the judge I was unable to apply the law he was going to charge and I would have been excused from serving. It would be totally improper to take the pledge of a juror, which includes the solemn promise to apply the law as the judge instructs, and then completely ignore the law.

As far as your closing point about what the founding fathers supposedly intended, sorry but what you say isn't accurate. The justice system in this country is not designed to imbue jurors with the power to disregard or nullify the law. Just the opposite is the case. Jurors take an oath to apply the law as given to them by the judge. If the law if wrong, as it has been in many instances, the mechanism for righting the wrong is thru either the legislative process (i.e. repealing an existing law or enacting curative legislation to correct what is wrong) or via appellate review. Let me give you one final example of why I disagree with your philosophy about this: Let's assume we're dealing with an African American defendant is charged with distribution of drugs. The judge would, in general terms, instruct the jury about what the law says regarding possession/distribution of illegal narcotics. Assume the facts are essentially uncontested that the defendant did in fact possess and sell heroin. Would it be valid under your way of thinking for a juror hearing this case to vote to acquit the defendant not because the juror doesn't think the defendant committed the crime, but because the juror believes the drug laws are unjust and all narcotics should be legalized, so the defendant is being charged with laws the juror personally disagrees with? Or would if be ok for the juror to ignore the law and aquit the defendant because the juror believes the drug laws unfairly burden the African American community? I would hope your answer to both questions would be "no", for the simple reason it is not for jurors to decide whether they agree with the law. There is a process for changing the law-but it's not a power delegated to juries.