Question for U.S. lawyers or jurists

I've yet to serve on a jury but I know people who have.

My understanding has been that the role of a jurors in a trial is to apply the law one is being charged with, consider the facts known in the case as supporting the defendant's guilt or innocence in relation to the law which was "broken" by the defendant. The law is the law.

I'm confused by a pamphlet I came across called "The Citizen's Rule Book"

In a nutshell, the way I understand this pamphlet, if a juror or a jury believe that a LAW is unsound, unconstitutional, etc, they can declare the defendant not guilty regardless of how cut and dried the law reads and regardless of how clearly facts may implicate a defendant as breaking that law. In effect, a juror or jury not only decide the fate of the defendant in relation to the trial, but they also can decide whether the LAW related to the case should be followed or nullified for that case.

Is this true? I realize I'm probably using incorrect legal terms in my descriptions and maybe I'm way off base her and my interpretation of the role or rights of a juror are incorrect, but I'm looking for clarification.

Thanks.

Chris L

First off, I didn't actually read that because it sounds like a big waste of my time and it'll probably only get me angry at the authors.

The simple answer is no. The role of the jury is not to interpret the law, that is the judge's job. If the jury thinks that marijuana laws are stupid and against public policy, they cannot acquit the defendant for that reason. The role of the jury is to decide facts.

Example: The jury decides whether or not the defendant intended to distribute pot. The jury may also determine if the police in fact found pot on the defendant's person or if it was planted there. Those are questions for the jury.
The jury cannot just say "hey, we don't like this law, and you know what, even though that dude was running down the street carrying 1 kilo of marijuana and he was selling it to people as he went down the street...we'll still find him innocent because thats not how the law works."

Normally the jury is given a set of questions by the judge and the jury answers them. Then the judge applies the law and gives the verdict.

Sometimes its a little different, but the role of the jury is never to interpret the law, their role is to determine the truth, or at least come close. Now...I suppose an unscrupulous jury could collaborate and say that the dude really didn't have pot on his person even though 50 people saw him with it just to make a point... But, the judge can return a ruling notwithstanding the verdict; essentially overturning the jury's fact finding.

Sadly, I'm completely ignorant in this area. Thanks for the info.

Let's say a law is grossly unconstitutional and it happens to be a law pertaining to a case on trial. Does that mean then that the jury asks the judge to determine whether the law is constitutional? Maybe my question is this then; what if it's a bad law? By bad, I mean truly unconstitutional. Theoretically, if a jury somehow determines during the course of a trial that a law pertinent to the case is unconstitutional, the law is the law and the jury MUST decide based on the bad law? That seems to be against what my understanding of the founding father's intents were.:thinking::shrug:

Chris L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Sadly, I'm completely ignorant in this area. Thanks for the info.

Let's say a law is grossly unconstitutional and it happens to be a law pertaining to a case on trial. Does that mean then that the jury asks the judge to determine whether the law is constitutional? Maybe my question is this then; what if it's a bad law? By bad, I mean truly unconstitutional. Theoretically, if a jury somehow determines during the course of a trial that a law pertinent to the case is unconstitutional, the law is the law and the jury MUST decide based on the bad law? That seems to be against what my understanding of the founding father's intents were.:thinking::shrug:

Chris L

---

edit: I suppose what I wrote below is a long winded way of saying, the trial judge applies the law, and only the appellate courts determine if its constitutional or not.

The judge must still apply the law to the facts. The loser will then appeal, and if the law is truly unconstitutional, they will overturn the entire law. If the appellate court affirms the trial court's ruling then the highest court gets a shot at it, and if they decide it is constitutional, then too bad. Thats the law and its constitutional, the loser and all that come after her must live with the law as interpreted until it is litigated again and reaches the highest court in that jurisdiction.

Remember there are state constitutions and a federal one. The US Supreme court can only hear matters of federal question or constituional issues.

So if one juror during a trial has some idea that a defendant is not guilty or should be considered not guilty because a law is suspect as to its validity, what happens to that juror if he maintains that stance? Other than probably getting harassed or getting punched by the other jurors that believe a defendant is guilty, want to find the defendant as such and just want to go home?

Chris L

Nothing the justice system can really do other than to keep sending the jury back to the voting area to hash it out and return a unanimous decision. Or to declare a hung jury and retry the case. I think some/most/all jurisdictions allow the judge to recuse a juror and call in a backup.

Some jurisdictions allow a guilty/liable finding on a majority vote of jurors. Never simple majority though.

On a side note, the ideals in that pamphlet are pretty common.

There is a rigorous process for screening potential jurors, and a variety of grounds on which a juror might be kicked out of the jury and replaced by a back-up. However, some nut-jobs still get onto juries, and there have been several well publicized cases where a defense lawyer argued for "jury nullification" in his closing remarks.

The reason a lawyer can get away with that, is that lawyers are allowed to say pretty much anything they want in their closing arguments. So, if a defense lawyer sizes up a jury and thinks that they might be swayed by arguments against a law, he/she may try it.

That's why the final word to the Jury comes from the judge. The last thing the Judge will do is "instruct the jury." This normally includes explaining what the law means, and a person would violate it, and instructing the jury that they may only consider evidence that was presented in the trial, etc.

edit* After reading JMS's response, I suppose I should point out that I am not a lawyer. I have seen jury trials first hand, however.

Twelve Angry Men with Henry Fonda, Lee J Cobb, EG Marshell and I could go on is a worthwhile courtroom drama on this topic. If you haven't seen it give it a look if you get the chance.

I am just curious how many who have replied are bona fide lawyers?
One of my closest friends on SRP is a Lawyer, and I hope to here from him shortly.

I have to agree with those above regarding the role of jurors in the legal system for the USA. A juror is only to determine the facts of a case, not to apply the law. They hear the evidence and make factual determinations. IE, whether a person premeditated the killing of a person or if it was a spontaneous crime, or if it was self defense. The Judge is the person which is charged with the application of the law to the facts as determined by the jury.

I do disagree that only appellate courts have the jurisdiction to determine a law as unconstitutional. A Judge which falls under the Judicial Branch of the government has the power to determine a law unconstitutional and refuse to apply such a law to a certain case. A Judge is bound by the application of the Constitution, and a governmental action which is counter to the Constitution is void on its face and cannot be upheld. However, such a determination by a trial level judge will only apply to the one case upon which the Judge is ruling. In order for such a determination to have any effect beyond the one case, a determination that a law is unconstitutional will have to be from an appellate court. Further, in the Federal level, if the 10th Circuit determines a law as unconstitutional, then this determination is only effective in those states covered under the 10th circuit. The law would not have been determined unconstitutional as it pertains to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, ... Circuits. It is only applied nationally when the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a law, or if all Appellate Circuit Courts make a ruling on the constitutionality of the law.

Wow, long winded reply. Sorry if I got off topic.

A juror's job is factual determination only. A Judge's job is application of the law to the facts determined by the jurors. However, as stated above, the Judge can enter an Order not withstanding the verdict, which means the Judge has the power to overturn the factual determinations of the jury, if the determination is and abuse of discretion or beyond the bounds of reason. Judges almost never use this power, but will do it if the Jury is clearly making a determination that has not support by the evidence in the record.

Matt

Edit: Also, a person can request a trial to the bench which is when he/she waives his right to a jury trial, and the Judge acts as both the fact finder and also applies the law to the facts. Also, the Constitution states that the right to a jury trial is "preserved." This has been interpreted such that if you had the right to a jury trial when the Constitution was written then you still have that right. But for laws/"rights" determined after the constitution was written, then you do not have a constitutional right to a jury trial. Example would be in workers' compensation claims you do not have a trial to a jury, but to a judge only. There is no right to jury trial in these cases, because there was no such thing as "workers' compensation" claims when the constitution was written, and so there was not "preservation" of a right to jury trials. You also do not appear before a Judge under the Judicial branch of the government, but before an Administrative Law Judge which actually falls under the executive branch of the government. I qualify this such that I can only state this definitively for Colorado, and make no statement as to what happens in work comp claims in other states, let alone other countries (if they even have such a thing).

EDIT #2: correcting typos. When I posted it was really late, after a birthday party with about 30 kids under the age of 8.