Thread: Question for U.S. lawyers or jurists

In that case, what does the concept of jury nullification entail? I've heard people mention it with the implication that the jury -can- provide a verdict, based on whether they agree with the law or not.

Originally Posted by Bruno

In that case, what does the concept of jury nullification entail?

Well, the judge instructs the jury, and a judge can throw out a verdict, although that's pretty rare, but when the jury goes to deliberate their verdict, it's 100% up to them how they actually rule. It's sort of an honor system.

So basically it entails having a defense attorney try to convince a jury to vote against the law in his closing arguments (although I seem to vaguely recall a movement to make this illegal a few years ago. Don't know if that ever went anywhere)

Or, it could entail a juror or jurors with strong views against the law in a particular case trying to convince other jurors to vote in spite of the facts because they think a law is unjust.

That's why there is such a lengthy process to screen jurors before a trial, and alternate jurors if one has to be removed, and heavy penalties for attempting to tamper with a jury.




Also, , I want to address the comment about wondering how many people who responded were actually lawyers. I think it's a valid question, and I also understand why the original post was directed at lawyers. However, if only lawyers responded, this would be a pretty pointless thread. (Unless I missed it, no actual members of the barr have responded)

Also, my personal belief is that it is the responsibility of every citizen of a civilized nation with a modern legal system to stay informed about such topics within their particular country. So, just because a person isn't an actual lawyer, doesn't mean that they haven't done their homework. Of course, maybe that's just the Eagle Scout in me.....

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

(Unless I missed it, no actual members of the barr have responded)

IIRC Matt (mhailey) is a lawyer.

I am not a lawyer, but if I were on a jury and thought the law was being mis-applied for whatever reason or if I thought it was an unjust law I would have no moral issue in negating that law. The law is printed text, people are human and therefore of much more value.

A juror has no ability to nullify a law. They are present only to determine the facts. They make a decision on whether a fact occurred or not. (was a person's ability to drive a motor vehicle impaired, was the person actually operating the motor vehicle, ...) They make the factual determinations of the case, not the application of the law. Now, they can make factual determinations such that a law will not apply, but they cannot nullify a law.

Matt

Edit: Bruno, as to Jury nullification, an example of this concept can be seen in cases of spousal abuse, where the abused wife kills her husband while he is sleeping, and claims self defense. she admits that he was asleep, she took the gun and shot him, that she thought about what she was doing, and carried out the murder. Under the letter of the law, she committed 1st degree murder, and self defense does not apply. For self defense to apply she had to be under and immediate threat of severe bodily harm, and this is not the case because the person she shot (I won't call such an abuser a victim but that is for another thread) was asleep. The jury nonetheless finds her innocent based upon self defense, determining that her mental state somehow fit under the self defense guidelines. It is clearly the wrong determination based upon the letter of the law, but they make factual determinations such that the law does not apply. In these instances the Judge can, and sometimes will, overturn the jury's determination because it is blatantly wrong under the letter of the law.

Matt