And what evidence of this "legal doctrine" do you provide, Al? I was unaware of it. I thought if the case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the person is found fit to stand trial and has been given a sufficient and reasonable defense that the juror is obligated to convict and that extenuating circumstances only comes into play in the penalty phase.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I am curious though if you don't mind explaining.

I'd also be interested in this.

In the UK (whose common law system is the basis for the US system) jury decisions are only relevant to decide factual questions, not legal ones.

I believe he is speaking of jury nullification. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

I figured he was speakling of that, but here is the US view on jury nullification...

In the 1895 in the case of Sparf v. United States written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the United States Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present a nullification argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.[32]

In recent rulings, the courts have continued to prohibit informing juries about jury nullification. In a 1969, Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F.2 1002 (4th Cir.1969), the Court affirmed the concept of jury nullification, but upheld the power of a court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.[33] In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify.[34]

In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b).[35] The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. Further, as officers of the court, attorneys have sworn an oath to uphold the law, and are ethically prohibited from directly advocating for jury nullification.[36]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

That seems anything but clear.

Maybe the jury is still out on whether it's valid...

The 88 and 97 rulings kind of make it clear that jury nullifaction is no more, or at least that a judge can say in a specific case that jury nullification isn't permissible.

Of course, who is to say that the juror instends to nullify or just feels the prosecutor didn't prove his case.

http://fija.org/

I'm not sure how precedents, obiter dicta and ratio decidendi work with the American system but I think you're right Draugnar.

We need an American lawyer/law student to explain this in more depth! I'd be fascinated.

Its simple. Jury nullification is de jure not permitted, but can be done de facto.

They can't stop you from doing it, unless you specifically show that you're choosing to nullify.

I'd guess they can mistrial at that point (not sure).

On a historical note, that sort of thing is basically the reason that the British stopped hanging people for petty theft (bloody code, etc). Juries refused to convict for such things, and it went away.

Yes. From what Draugnar put it sounded like a jury could nullify provided it did so independently and without indicating it's intentions beforehand.

I just wasn't sure whether the cases listed were binding or not, or how junior they were.

Well the sixth and second circuit courts are federal appelate courts, so not exactly junior in that sense.

I see. That makes sense. Thanks.

Not sure what you're talking about, OP. I learned about this sophomore year of HS.

And how much of high school government classes do you think most people in the U.S. remember? I remember some discussion of juries, but not jury nullification.

I had high school government last semester and I don't remember it.

That doesn't mean it didn't get discussed; I tend to tune out during first period.

Former law student here.

The only fancy legal noise you need in order to justify a not guilty verdict is "reasonable doubt." Quit screwing around with this jury nullification nonsense. It's just a bunch of non-lawyers trying to unnecessarily out-lawyer lawyers.

"It's just a bunch of non-lawyers trying to unnecessarily out-lawyer lawyers."

Or it's a bunch of lawyers who are terrified at the thought of us unwashed peasants actually thinking for ourselves instead of applying the absurd legal theories you law students all paid tens of thousands of dollars to learn.

Oh, Tolstoy. Those absurd legal theories are what protect our liberties. The law is complex and requires specialized practitioners to make sure it works properly. Lawyers are like mechanics. Just because some are crooked and screw you over doesn't mean you don't need them.

As for jury nullification itself, I don't start law school till the fall but I took a history of the common law class and a comparative law class as an undergrad so I'm not totally illiterate on this sort of thing. Now, that means a first-grade reading level rather than kindergarten, but a bit of a more detailed understanding nonetheless.

It sounds great in theory and as Jack Klein says it can totally happen, but in practice it's not some magical libertarian way for the people to check the state. Juries are made up of people too stupid to get out of jury duty. Any set of attorneys worth their retainers will voir dire the hell out of prospective jurors to weed out people like Tolstoy or people with any kind of legal background. So yeah, nullification can happen and I too have this romantic respect for it, but it's not really something that can be used a bunch or even should be. After all, justice should be applied in consistent, predictable ways for everyone. Jury nullification goes against that principle.

Also it should be "Jurors' Rights."

"Juries are made up of people too stupid to get out of jury duty."

Gosh, you haven't even been to law school and you've already acquired their elitist mentality. If jurors are too stupid to make good decisions, why bother with jury trials at all? Why not simply have the judge determine guilt? Or flip a coin? Or have latin legal lingo rap contests between the lawyers?

"in practice it's not some magical libertarian way for the people to check the state."

Au contraire. Aside from Mr. Klein's example, jury nullification was also used to free slaves who had escaped to the northern states and were supposed to be returned to slavery due to the fugitive slave act. Jury nullification was also a factor in the repeal of alcohol prohibition; prosecutors couldn't get convictions for alcohol 'crimes' and acquiesced to its repeal because the law had essentially become unenforceable. Jury nullification has been occasionally alleged (in quiet and hushed tones) for failures to convict in all sorts of drug 'crimes' in the present time. Witness also one of the most famous incidences of jury nullification - the acquittal of Peter Zenger of seditious libel for criticizing the king. It's not mythical "magic" - it is without a doubt the most effective way for people to combat government abuses in any individual legal case without resorting to violence.

"it's not really something that can be used a bunch or even should be"

So if you had been on some jury in Illinois in 1855 charged with determining whether an escaped slave should be sent back to Simon Legree's plantation, you would just shrug and say "the law is the law" as you cast your vote to send him down the river?

"justice should be applied in consistent, predictable ways for everyone."

I agree with this sentence fragment at least. But INjustice should be fought at every turn and junction and in every conceivable manner - of which nullification is one of the best tools the system affords us. The goal of nullification is more justice - yes, perhaps at the cost of "consistency" and "predictability", but this is a trade-off I'm more than willing to make.

The problem, Tolstoy, is that the 2nd and 6th circuit courts have rukled that judges can declare mistrials if a determination if jury nullifcation is found and that any juror believed to be intending to nullify can be disqualified. Considering the judge knows *everything* that goes on in the jury room (there are no secrets in there) then trying to get your fellow jurists to nullify could get a mistrial and everyhting start all over with a whole new set of jurors. And if the judge's instructions were clear that he woudln't allow it, you could find yourself in contempt of court which means no hearing or trial for you. You rot in jail until the judge decides to let you out. Yes, judges can, and do, issue those orders and they are followed.

Yeah, Draug and AWB are wrong. Just because the judge need not inform juries about their right to nullify does not mean the right does not exist. It very much does, and yes, more people should know about it. It's a fundamental liberty of Anglo-American law.

I think in the "olden days" of the Scottish legal system
a jury had 3 options for it's finding,
guilty
not guilty
& charge(s) not proven

I am concerned that many Governments are pushing to make it
"easier to get convictions" & we get told all the excuses...
"it's the only way to protect you from...terrorists,...."outlaw motorbikie gangs"
.... organised crime gangs, etc etc.

There's very good reasons as to why the British legal system evolved to make it "hard" to get convictions & the underlying principles of
"innocent until proven guilty BEYOND reasonable doubt"
and "it's better that 9 guilty men walk free than having one innocent man convicted"
became accepted.

Another thing that most people forget is that when the Nazi's gained control
in Germany, is that their first efforts at corrupting the German judiciary & legal system
involved the introduction of legislation that allowed for the use of secret evidence
( evidence not made available to the Defendant or their legal representatives )
& trial by (politically appointed ) judge(s) without juries
was legislation in the area of Industrial Law and aimed at the Communist infiltrated
Waterside Trade Unions in the major Port towns, eg Hamburg, Kiel
Excuses used / Sales pitch for the citizens ----
"we need to get the economy going"
" we need to create jobs, jobs jobs for the masses of unemployed"
"you can trust us with these powers"
"we need to get rid of inneficient work practises on the wharfs"

"terrorists" and "organised crime gangs" are often used as the modern
day "scapegoats" to allow poorly resourced & / or lazy & / or incompetent prosecutors
to get easy convictions---- don't worry we'll only use these things against the "bad guys"
you will be told, and an apathetic and uncritical public laps it up

Jury nullification exists; as a right and as something that actually occurs. In most jurisdictions jurors will not be instructed on this right. Similarly, if it becomes apparent during voire dire that the juror intends to nullify, they will be removed. This has less to do with nullification than with the juror coming in with a predisposition. The same would be true if the juror displayed an intent to convict because the defendant was an ex. The same is true for the death penalty. In capital cases the jury must be "death-qualified", meaning they are willing to give death (and don't have a moral objection to the death penalty which would prohibit them from such a determination).

But the jury's deliberations are their own. If a criminal is convicted, he can appeal and ask an appellate court to check whether the state presented sufficient evidence. The appellate court looks at the record, but not the jury's deliberations. Conversely, if the defendant is acquitted, the state does not have a similar right to appeal.

So a local jurisdiction is going hard against prescription drug offenses. The LEO employ every tactic, such as stings and getting defendants to flip. One person is arrested, she makes a deal for a lesser charge by telling Leo she works in home healthcare an can buy from a client. The client is an elderly man who has shared his pills from time to time in the past. But this time, while recorded, she asks for five pills instead of one and refuses to take them for free. The defendant testified, admitting giving her prescription pills for remuneration. I watched the trial but of course have no idea what the jury discussed. They might have talked about baseball or swapped recipes. I have no idea if "nullification" was mentioned. But the guy was acquitted.

I would like to thank JC Bryan for looking up Jury Nullification for us.

Despite the flippancy of a couple of posters, it does seem that most posters here were not familiar with this doctrine prior to my bringing it up. Baffling, as I stated before.

I find it amusing that most of the people here with a legal background seem interested in quietly hushing the very concept up. Not only do they wish to discourage us from being taught this in school, but also from informally discussing it on a discussion board. It's verboten, according to them, even to discuss this inside of a court room and they don't want us aware that this exists even as a historical precedent.

I'd like to express my disappointment in Draugnar in particular. While I generally avoid leveling specific complaints at most players on this discussion board, I find it more than a bit cowardly the idea that you would not only be afraid to engage in jurist activism if you thought it appropriate for a case you might be hypothetically appointed to, but to discourage other readers of this discussion board from educating themselves about the process.

My understanding about contempt rulings is that they're pretty rare. Judges don't have so much extra space available in jails that they can afford to just lock people up whom they don't like.

This is interesting - I'm going to post another thread about civil rights in a bit. The lack of general information about this sort of stuff is surprising.

For many it is not about hushing the practice, it's about 1) the non-necessity of it (just acquit the guy, no need to know about legal precedent), or 2) realizing the battle is in mundane legal work (you're not going to win the war in front of a trial judge. Instead you hope to split the circuits and hav the scotus rule on it).

Especially before condemning the entire legal profession, remember that many criminal trial attorneys are bleeding heart liberals working for the defense of these people.

I just did the cursory research. My legal knowledge is limited to IT contracts and liability clauses in software and even that is limited to protecting myself from a lawsuit should someone claim my software doesn't do X when it wasn't designed to do it.

But when a quick Google found the wiki page which highlighted two court decisions that make it more or less a moot point as courts aren't required to mention it and can even disallow it as an option and attorneys aren't allowed to mention it to the jurors, it seems to be a useless discussion. You have to get a whole room full of people to agree to it for it to work anyhow or you just get a hung jury and a retrial.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

You cite one court instructing that nullification doesn't exist. What about those Americans living in the other 11 regions?

And the argument that the courts won't proactively tell you your rights so should we be discussing it more as citizens, well I think that was Al's point.

Recall that your right remain silent was always present as an American. But it wasn't until the 1960s with Miranda did the government have to read these rights at an interrogation. Perhaps Al will start a movement and in 2060 juries will be read their rights. (And by 2113 the population will forget and take it for granted. )