Thread: Question for U.S. lawyers or jurists

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.

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.