Thread: Question for U.S. lawyers or jurists

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

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.

You and me both.

Originally Posted by mhailey

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.

Matt

I get what you're saying, but something in principal seems wrong there; I know this is an extreme theoretical stretch, but say we were to have an overzealous corrupt power mad government and there was a law passed which called for the execution of anyone who was heard to disagree with whatever current administration was in office. Say the law was very cut and dried on that. Say someone was charged with breaking that law and tried. Say the FACTS confirmed that the person did in fact make statements opposing the current administration. On a jury, as a citizen, you're saying then that every member of that jury would be required to vote guilty? If that example is weak from a legal or realistic perspective, please let your mind wander then and come up with an equally wildly absurd, potentially dangerous but theoretically possible law and apply it here.

Originally Posted by norman931

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.

Very powerful statement, Norm. I can just see if you were there with Jefferson and Franklin you'd get a "hear hear!" from them!


Chris L

Originally Posted by ChrisL

I get what you're saying, but something in principal seems wrong there; I know this is an extreme theoretical stretch, but say we were to have an overzealous corrupt power mad government and there was a law passed which called for the execution of anyone who was heard to disagree with whatever current administration was in office. Say the law was very cut and dried on that. Say someone was charged with breaking that law and tried. Say the FACTS confirmed that the person did in fact make statements opposing the current administration. On a jury, as a citizen, you're saying then that every member of that jury would be required to vote guilty? If that example is weak from a legal or realistic perspective, please let your mind wander then and come up with an equally wildly absurd, potentially dangerous but theoretically possible law and apply it here.

The jury is going to vote how it wants. Now, the jury can do one of two things in that situation. Apply the law as it is and sentence the person to death, which btw, in a democracy, they probably voted for. Or, they can see the unrighteousness of the action and vote for acquital even though the defendant is clearly guilty.

In criminal law, once acquitted its over, no double jeopardy. In civil law, theres appeals. That said, I haven't taken crim pro yet so...I don't know if the jury's verdict is the final judgment. Also, if they are given questions to answer: say... did he say the phrase that will get him killed? They can answer no, even if the guy admitted to saying it. Thus, the fact would be found that no, the guy did not say it, therefore he is innocent.

The guy can also appeal his sentence and the appellate court will overturn the unconstitutional law because it is cruel & unusual punishment.

Originally Posted by Leighton

In criminal law, once acquitted its over, no double jeopardy. In civil law, theres appeals. That said, I haven't taken crim pro yet so...I don't know if the jury's verdict is the final judgment. Also, if they are given questions to answer: say... did he say the phrase that will get him killed? They can answer no, even if the guy admitted to saying it. Thus, the fact would be found that no, the guy did not say it, therefore he is innocent.

The guy can also appeal his sentence and the appellate court will overturn the unconstitutional law because it is cruel & unusual punishment.

There are always appeals, for both sides. Look at the trial/appeal of Joe Nacchio, Qwest CEO. Prosecution appealed a judicial ruling and prevailed on appeal. Also, there is no double jeopardy as it pertains to each sovereign, but you can be tried twice for the same crime by two difference governments. Look at the Rodney King trial, the cops were acquitted at the state level, but then the Federal government tried them and convicted them of violating his civil rights.

It seems that the main thing you are asking is whether a jury can nullify the effect of a law when its is contrary to the person's basic rights. in most of the hypothetical cases you will imagine, they will more than likely be unconstitutional, and in such a case the defendant's lawyer should be raising the argument that the law is unconstitutional, and the case would be dismissed, and no valid law would have been broken. The constitution is very important as it is the people's contract with the governments (both state and federal) in which we have given the governments their power over us. Without these Constitutions, the governments would not exist, and they would have no power. If the actions/laws of the government exceed the power we have given them, the such actions/laws have no effect and are unconstitutional. If the actions/laws fall within this power we have granted them, then there is absolutely no basis for a jury to nullify it. We gave them the power to pass the law, and if we the people don't like it, change it through the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.

Matt

Was it an interlocutory appeal or was he acquitted and then the prosecution appealed?

Originally Posted by ChrisL

I get what you're saying, but something in principal seems wrong there; I know this is an extreme theoretical stretch, but say we were to have an overzealous corrupt power mad government and there was a law passed which called for the execution of anyone who was heard to disagree with whatever current administration was in office. Say the law was very cut and dried on that. Say someone was charged with breaking that law and tried. Say the FACTS confirmed that the person did in fact make statements opposing the current administration. On a jury, as a citizen, you're saying then that every member of that jury would be required to vote guilty? If that example is weak from a legal or realistic perspective, please let your mind wander then and come up with an equally wildly absurd, potentially dangerous but theoretically possible law and apply it here.
Chris L

The issue with the theoretical law you provided is that it is clearly unconstitutional. However, if the law is constitutional, and crazy, then yes, the Jury should be compelled to provide a determination of guilty.

Take my example above with the perpetually abused wife that shoots her abusing husband while he sleeps. She is guilty of 1st degree murder, and a Jury should be compelled to provide a determination of guilty. If there is enough outrage over such a case, then the legislative branch of the government should pass a law which qualifies this type of "justified homicide" if that is the will of the people.

The beauty of our government is that everyone has a say in what goes on in government, and everyone's vote counts. Look at the last election and the dramatic shift in power, and the dramatic changes taking place. In a jury is not the place to challenge a law. If you want to challenge it, write your representatives/senators.

Matt

Originally Posted by mhailey

In a jury is not the place to challenge a law. If you want to challenge it, write your representatives/senators.

Matt

Do you say it's not the place to challenge a law because a jury is prohibited from doing so or are you saying that based on your philosophical opinion? I'm asking that in all seriousness since I am embarrassingly ignorant regarding the law. I'm trying to change that.

Chris L

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Do you say it's not the place to challenge a law because a jury is prohibited from doing so or are you saying that based on your philosophical opinion? I'm asking that in all seriousness since I am embarrassingly ignorant regarding the law. I'm trying to change that.

Chris L

A jury cannot change the law. Its not in the constitution. The legilature and the judicial branch can change laws.

edit: Think about it. You really don't want to give 12 people that kind of power.... Like you said, they could be 12 whackos. Its a double edged sword. If the jury can challenge a law for its constitutionality, they can change a law to make it fit their version of the desired result. Thus, the slave owner would go free for doing something wrong because the 12 jurors are all slave owners and they have all done it themselves and they rallied around their fallen comrade.

Originally Posted by Leighton

A jury cannot change the law. Its not in the constitution. The legilature and the judicial branch can change laws.

edit: Think about it. You really don't want to give 12 people that kind of power.... Like you said, they could be 12 whackos. Its a double edged sword. If the jury can challenge a law for its constitutionality, they can change a law to make it fit their version of the desired result. Thus, the slave owner would go free for doing something wrong because the 12 jurors are all slave owners and they have all done it themselves and they rallied around their fallen comrade.

He said "challenge" the law, not change it. My question to Matt still stands and I see he answered it. Thanks for clarification, Matt.

I agree with you, jury power does cut both ways in that you could have a wacko juror or wacko jury that would believe even abhorrent acts should be allowable. Personally, that possibility is not enough of an argument for me to feel that a jury's right to nullification, if the jury does have the right should be done away with. That argument has similar tone IMO to us giving up ALL civil liberties because some wacko individuals may wish to harm us with terrorist acts.

Chris L

A couple more links for you:

ISIL -- A History of Jury Nullification

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/jdr...ield_recon.htm (Mansfieldization of juries)

Great thread, by the way. Thanks Chris.

I thought this (from the link above on Mansfielding) was interesting, referring to the "Fully Informed Jury" (link above in my earlier posting):


"There is already a movement and an organization devoted to informing jurors of their power and duty to review the law in a trial. However, its present leadership has adopted the mistaken doctrine that the duty of the jury is to render a verdict based on conscience and a natural sense of justice. That is incorrect. Jurors are judicial officers, just as much as the bench is, even if only for the duration of a trial. The Constitution provides that “... all judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” It is unconstitutional to have jurors take an oath to “follow the law as given by the judge” or words to that effect. Jurors should take the same oath the bench does, to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States [and of this State]”, or words to the same effect. Their duty is to the governing constitution, not to the presiding officer of the court, who is called “judge”, but shares the duties of judge with the jury when there is one. The duty of the jury is to do what a good judge is supposed to do, to decide the issues of fact, and to review the legal decisions of the bench in reaching their general verdict, deciding whether those decisions are authorized by the governing constitution and statutes, and returning a verdict of not guilty if they have a reasonable doubt about that."