[Jury Nullification] is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law. The jury’s reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust
Until the wealthy and powerful are held to account, why punish your fellow everyday citizens? Use your brain. Decide if what they’re charging people with is suppression or actually keeping society safe.
When those prosecutors start losing these cases, maybe they will start to rethink who they are focusing on.
Unpopular take but despite it being a popular thing, we want jury nullification to come from individual conclusions that this law does not apply despite the circumstances, and not because they know they can. Every study ever has shown that people who know about jury nullification tend to dismiss evidence more often, and are more easily deceived by a sympathetic/ non-sympathetic looking defendant. It’s not even a law, it’s the result of the fact juries can’t be prosecuted for their decisions so really they can do whatever they want. This is enough to know that technically you can “nullify the law”. That goes both ways, people can convict without evidence
Saying the law doesn’t actually apply despite the person having done the thing the law says not to do is very different from saying the punishment should be nil. This could also keep you from ever serving on a jury and telling others about this in certain circumstances could be a crime. All the legal minds who looked into this agree it should still remain a thing, but it shouldn’t be told to jurors explicitly. When you serve you swear to uphold the law, so it’s tricky to nullify without purgery except for very very special cases.
This is not a good YSK, you should understand what the law is as a juror. You could in theory reword this entire post without actually using the term and that would probably be helpful, but super complicated to write.
This is really important. You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.
In addition, sentencing is (usually) separate from conviction and is the judge’s decision, although a jury can recommend a sentence. If someone is found guilty of theft for stealing a loaf of bread, they’re not going to get 20 years in jail except in musicals.
IMO, nullification should be used as an absolute last resort. Have a sympathetic defendant accused of second degree murder? Knock it down to a lower-level manslaughter and find them guilty. The sentencing of that might have a low maximum.
There are only a few rare problems that actually need nullification. It (generally) shouldn’t just be used for laws that you disagree with. One such problem is mandatory sentencing minimums. If someone steals that load of bread and they’ve already been convicted twice for theft or other crimes, they may be subject to things like 3-strike laws and get a sentence that is WAY more than they deserve, and the judge can’t do anything about it. The judge might feel that they deserve to give only 20 hours of community service as a sentence, but they legally have to sentence the convicted to 6 months in prison. Nullification is probably warranted there. Someone found with 1.25 ounces of marijuana in a state where only 1 ounce is legal, so they get charged with a drug distribution felony? And the judge/prosecutor refuses to lower the charge? Maybe find them not guilty. But it should be the last resort, not the first option.
You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.
No, it can often be a good reason. I disagree with laws that would make it illegal for trans people to use their preferred bathroom. They punish women for not being feminine enough, it forcibly outs trans people. It’s dangerous and stupid.
Anybody who votes not guilty in such a case is right to do so.
I replied to the other thread before you, but it’s a good point that atrociously unjust laws are good targets for jury nullification. Bathroom laws are a good example, although I fear that we wouldn’t necessarily be on a jury where all other 11 members agree with us that it is an obvious violation of a trans person’s rights, sadly. Especially in the states where those laws exist. A hung jury, where not everybody agrees is better than a conviction, but a “not guilty” verdict can’t be re-tried (in almost all circumstances).
we want jury nullification to come from individual conclusions that this law does not apply despite the circumstances, and not because they know they can.
There is an ongoing shift towards fascism, and at least for now the courts still have power over whether or not people get to walk free.
So there is more to it than your letting on. We’re gonna see cases of people who have done illegal things because the fascists in power decided to make existence defacto illegal for people.
An example of this is the bans on transgender people from using bathrooms other than their assigned sex. If I’m ever a juror on a case like that, I’m fucking voting not guilty, and everybody else should too.
Or it will be used to let fascists off, because their supporters will vote fucking not guilty and say that everyone else should too.
That goes both ways, people can convict without evidence
This doesn’t seem right… My understanding of jury nullification is that it ends with the charges being dismissed. I didn’t think it went both ways. Like, I don’t think a jury can say, “we know there isn’t evidence that this person is guilty, but we want to put them away anyway.”
Like, I don’t think a jury can say, “we know there isn’t evidence that this person is guilty, but we want to put them away anyway.”
The can, but if the judge isn’t a total douche, they would just overrule the jury. Not to mention, it could be appealed. The guilty version of nullification is much weaker.
They’re saying that a defendant can be convicted with minimal or circumstantial evidence. Because, much like they can decide the law shouldn’t apply when they think the defendant did it, they can decide the defendant is guilty even if the evidence doesn’t say that.
I disagree, we also want people to nullify laws that are unjust, such as prosecuting a woman who decides to have an abortion. This is one of the means the people retain to fight tyranny.
My comment does not say jury nullification shouldn’t exist/be allowed. It says the opposite.
Let me clarify, I disagree that people should not be informed about jury nullification. Too many people forget that we grant our government power. One way we continue to enforce that power grant is by reserving the right to a trial by a jury of your peers. Too many people take that message to heart that they need to rule in accordance with the law.
That goes both ways, people can convict without evidence
There’s a fail safe for this, a judge can override a juries guilty vote but not a ruling of innocence.
Still, not ideal because it comes down to one person not agreeing with the jury, but at least there is some protection
IANAL, but it sounds like a “JNOV” could allow the judge to basically throw out a jury decision, regardless of what it is. It’s just that they almost never use it because, as long as the jury hasn’t been compromised or manipulated in some way, they respect the jury system.
IMO almost everyone (who knows about lemmy) knows about jury nullification. But the real risk people should know about is this JNOV ruling. I could envision a Trump appointed judge trying to use it nefariously in the near future.
The number of people ITT that want to find some reason they can’t have an impact by quoting obscure legal theorizing is pretty wild to me.
And it’s not like the charges are dropped if jury nullification takes place.
Both sides can appeal the decision and when it gets to an appeals judge they will likely look at the case and say ‘yea, this should be tried again’
Is an appealing an innocent verdict not double jeopardy?
they choose jurors specifically that wont “jury nullification” i know quite a few people who were chosen on the basis: if you dont question thier authority(the ones choosing jurors), they love the pushovers, the retirees and govt workers, because they know they have nothing else to do".
other issues if the judges ego is not stroked: you’re trying to get out of jury duty, they might force you to be on one regardless. i know subreddit and a forum that has a whole discussion around jury duty for each state/city. apparently some states are so desperate for jurors, they ignore most excuses.
I will also warn that you are likely committing perjury when they ask at the jury if they have an inability or refusal to follow the instructions or the law of the judge. Now this is difficult to prove, but it’s not something risk free
You’d think so, but no. You cannot be punished as a juror for voting your conscience. So long as you don’t say “I intentionally lied during voir dire to sabotage due process” they cannot even ask you why you voted the way you did unless you volunteer for questions afterwards.
You’d be surprised at how stupid people can be. Obviously we’re all dancing around one case and I assure the members of that jury will be pestered about it for a long time after
I am actually not dancing around any case. I believe people should be aware of this in EVERY CASE as long as the rule of law is being unequally applied to us.
So the remedy to a system which applies the law unequally is to have juries apply the law unequally?
If the state acts in bad faith, why should the citizenry respond with good faith?
It’s also worth knowing how to do it, as it isn’t exactly straightforward.
https://beyondcourts.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Jury-Nullification-Toolkit-English_0.pdf
If make it known that you know about it, or you are intentionally doing it, you could face legal issues.
But remember if you’re on jury selection, you don’t know what jury nullification is.
Apparently you can get in trouble for lying on those questionnaires
Who would know that you lied? There’s a reason “I do not recall” is a popular answer in court; The courts can’t prove that you remember something, because it’s entirely subjective. Without being mind readers, there’s no way for them to prove that you know something.
I guess it depends how far they wanted to go to investigate you. Theoretically they could try to find your social media history, etc.
Remember that lie detectors are absolute bullshit pseudoscience, just like trained drug dogs.
you can say you show bias towards the case, by citing any reasons, you will get strike from the juror pool most of the time .additionally, they dont even pay you well for your time, you can easily lose alot money a day for not working your job, in alot of places they can pay you a pittance of 5-15/day, in cali its 15 only a day. theres also the issue that your job will not look kindly for missing a lot of days.(despite what the law says the employee cant retaliate) they can do other things.
You are meant to “nullify” silently.
Nah, I’m good lol
Not sure why you’re trying to give up your rights, but ok.
I have the right to do a lot of things which would never come up.
I can and should review jury procedures when and if they call on me, but generally I do side with the laws. Like, as a general rule, murderers should go to prison, for example.
The law also sent Rosa Parks to jail.
Rosa Parks didn’t shoot the bus driver three times in the back with an unregistered firearm.
Did you miss my admonition to use your brain? Vote your conscience. You are a human who can make decisions.
You mentioned the law. I gave an example. Then you moved the goalposts. Grow up.
No, the goalpost is exactly where it started.
Okay, but with Luigi, it was self defense.
Don’t engage. Low effort edge troll.
Whats that? Your favorite murderer is going to prison? Womp Womp. How will you ever get by without him?
this is in light of Luigi Mangione’s recent court appearance isn’t it?
Nope.
You should be applying this to all juries you serve on. Accept those summonses. Get on those juries and use your brains.
The President has unlimited pardon powers, and so do juries.
President is one person. Juries are 12 people (at minimum, for criminal trials). Verdicts have to be unanimous. If theres 11 not guolty and 1 guilty, the prosecution can repeat the trials indefinitely (until a judge dismisses it with prejudice)
I think the judge can override the jury though, right? Ianal, but I thought the judge could do that for any case.
The judge cannot. They can prejudice the jury severely through unequal treatment of evidence, witnesses, and through clearly showing their bias at trial, which in practice can affect the verdict dramatically. On the other hand, doing that makes it a lot easier to overturn the verdict on appeal.
The case which unequivocally established the right of juries to countermand the judge was fucking wild.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushel’s_Case
The judge was putting William Penn and William Mead on trial for leading an unlawful religious assembly. The jury found the defendants, basically, guilty of “speaking,” but not of the crime they had been accused of. The judge blew his stack and ordered the defendants to be tied up (?) and the jury imprisoned without food, water, or heat. After two days with no food, the jury returned, and amended their verdict to “not guilty.” The judge got pissed again, ordered the jury to be fined (?) instead, and one of the jurors said he definitely wasn’t paying that, and appealed the whole judgement. The trial involved some physical violence in the courtroom when the judge would order something to happen and the person involved would tell the judge to fuck off and then resist the people who came in to try to enforce the ruling.
The appeals court sided with the jury. People remember Bushel (the juror) and his name is remembered as linked with the principle of law, and all people remember about the judge was that he was an asshole.
That’s hilarious, the jury wasn’t fucking around.
UK, the year 1670- I wonder if the US uses that law since we were under the crown at the time? Did we inherit any laws from before we claimed independence? I never thought about that.
We adopted a lot of the English legal system since a lot of the same courts were still operating before, during and after the revolution. We just wrote a bunch more stuff down (since for some reason even really important stuff in English law is still this kind of “everyone knows it’s that way” weird type of oral history system.) We also modified certain aspects in a more democratic spirit. But a lot of the bedrock, things like precedent, judges, juries, appeals, habeas corpus, and so on, comes from that system, so Bushel’s Case is still relevant in terms of talking about the nature of the judge/jury relationship.
We adopted a lot of the English legal system since a lot of the same courts were still operating before,
Except Louisiana. Louisiana is instead gifted with laws from Napoleonic France.
That makes sense, could you elaborate some of the big differences? I had no idea.
- “Case law,” meaning deciding court cases by referring to the results of previous cases, is much less important in Louisiana. Courts of appeals and the Louisiana Supreme Court are more liable to go against previous precedents than they might be in common law states.
- A lot more basic stuff in Louisiana is written into law statutes. The Louisiana constitution was completely rewritten in the 1970s, but today it is still the size of one of those old fashioned phone books.
- Louisiana has parishes instead of counties.
- In a criminal case, the Louisiana constitution does not guarantee defendants the right to trial by jury. That’s an English law tradition thing, not French (or “continental European”). Louisiana criminal defendants do get a right to jury guaranteed by the US constitution and by Louisiana statutes.
- Louisiana is (basically) the only state in the Union that doesn’t require a unanimous jury verdict in criminal cases. They got partially overruled by the feds on this recently, though.
- Louisiana does not participate in the Multistate Bar Exam. The Louisiana bar exam is the longest one to sit in the Union.
- You cannot disinherit any of your children. All children are entitled to a minimum fractional share of your estate. This is a reform actually from Napoleon, getting rid of “primogeniture” that was all the rage in England.
- Louisiana has a thing called “usufruct” that could be used to, say, let your spouse keep using your assets after you die (and your assets were force-inherited to your children).
- The governor of Louisiana is required to recite the oath of office twice, in English and French.
The judge cannot declare someone guilty if the berson pleads innocent. The judge can say not guilty and dismiss a case.
If you find yourself on jury duty in a very specific case (you know which one) you should know about this but pretend like you don’t.
There’s miscarriages of justice every day in this country. We need this attitude in cases where they’re trying someone for no charge other than resisting arrest just as much as that specific case.
in the courts thats true, like what is the circumstances of the accused, "the city targetting AA people preferentially and prosecuting them in quick sucession, like with luigi yes he isnt AA, but hes part of the class that challenged the ruling class. compared to a white person which they almost always become to careful not to charge them too quickly. in many cases the courts often try try to charge people on circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony.
Conversely, it’s a great way of getting out of jury duty if you mention it during jury pool selection in criminal cases - the prosecution will kick you out as quickly as possible. It’s why I haven’t served on a jury for over thirty years.
Serving jury duty is an honor. Don’t get out of it. The justice system sucks. Help it
Lmfao. You don’t beat the system by obeying the system. You burn it to the ground a build a new system, with hookers and blackjack.
“Seeing as your honor shows a 7, the prosecution will stand on 19.”
defense also with 17 “Hit us, your honor”
judge throws down a 4, half the courtroom bursts into cheers and the other into tears
