I take offense to being labeled "to stupid to get out of jury duty." It's my civic duty. That kind of attitude is one of the reasons the country is in the state it's in.

And just acquitting someone doesn't get the law changed. If you believe a law is unjust you should vote to nullify. This is how prohibition was eventually repealed, as was mentioned earlier. No, the law didn't change after the first nullification, or the 2nd or 3rd, but eventually the prosecutors realized they couldn't get convictions so they stopped trying. "Government of the people by the people for the people..." The people didn't want it, so the law changed. (I realize Lincoln using these words was hypocritical, but it seemed to fit my rant. Of course, Lincoln is a topic for another time.)

There is no "vote to nullify" accepted by the courts. Voting not guilty is the only option in court. Nullification is a concept, not an acceptable vote.

Are a dozen individuals representative of the people? Really? Especially ones who have been filtered?

well I'll admit jury trials can be imperfect,
I support markturrieta' s point that Jury Duty is a responsibility to be taken on willingly
by all citizens who expect an "as good as we can have" judicial system
& all the other priveliges of living in a Democracy with Ideals of Justice &
equality of citizens legal rights, just like voting, paying taxes & participating in the "political debate & processes of government"

Just watched a Law & Order: SVU that involved just this concept. A woman shot a radio tall show host who she viewed as corrupting kids after her son raped a girl to try and get on the guus show. 6 v 6 hung jury even though the evidence was clear that she did it as a promotional stunt and even arranged to have it photographed.

I misspoke and stand corrected: there is no vote to nullify. You would indeed vote not guilty if you felt nullification was in order.

Thanks, Draugnar, for catching that.

Unlike TV crime shows, the vast majority of convictions are obtained on the basis of the Police getting an "admission of guilt statement" from the "accused"
Thats why Police push a suspect so hard for an "admission statement"
you get the suspect to admit guilt
and there's no need for all that dificult to gather evidence

thats why all Lawyers will advise "never answer questions / make a statement
without first consulting a Lawyer"

Police get an admission of guilt because, even after having their rights read, criminals are dummies and often talk talk talk without asking for a lawyer in the hope that the police will go easy on them. That's just not how it works, though, and is a part of the reason the conviction rate is so high. People just confess to police minutes after being told they don't need to say anything.

I don't know the statistics, but I'd like to. My experience has been contrary to these assumptions. Most criminal cases I handled did not involve a statement of admission made to the police. It happened and not infrequently, but not the majority of the time. Traffic cases were done primarily on the officer's eye witness testimony (eg I observed her speed/swerve/etc). Same for drugs (there's a stop and they found prescription pills). Larceny had witnesses or video. Seldom did Leos need an admission.

More than once a client was anxious to immediately tell me that tey were not read their rights, which thy thought entitled them to a get out of jail free card. Then I find out they were never even questioned. I'd explain the law to them, tell them we'd investigate further, but that gut reaction is that the state probably has enough evidence to convict you without a statement.

I agree that most "petty" criminals are idiots / indulge in stupid behaviours
thhats why they do the things they do
Most well educated, intelligent people simply don't make such dumb choices

That's why I am a big supporter of having the best FREE to use public education
system a nation can afford, I believe providing Free Educational opportunities
is the most effective way to break the bonds of Poverty etc and create the most
prosperous & safe societies where wealth is shared around

"Most well educated, intelligent people simply don't make such dumb choices"

*cough* sub-prime mortgage-backed securities *cough*

Best way to get out of jury service is to mention Bushel's Law at some point. It still stands in both the UK and USA and makes the point that juries are completely independent of the judge. You won't get many lawyers, even progressive ones, informing you about it. In effect this means that juries can reach their verdict on a basis of their view of justice rather than on legality/illegality as laid down by the judge/legal system.

That sounds more like the best way to show that you're pretentious. What you're describing is simply jury nullification which is a common and specific enough term. And it seems Bushel dealt more with contempt charges against the jury for erroneous judgments. Basically, you'd be telling the court "I know little about the law, but enough to cause grief. And by the way, there's a 300 year old case that says you can't throw me in jail for coming to a wrong conclusion because it is very hard to tell what evidence a jury truly believes...in case my fellow jurors were worried about being thrown in jail." Which may get you out of jury duty, but for a different reason entirely.

I agree with the above.

Having said that, in English law there are multiple cases and even some statute law that is 400 years old and still held to be valid for good reasons. I don't necessarily think the age of a case or law is relevant, especially when it has been repeatedly affirmed.

I happen to know that Mr Bushel was very much a live issue in the Clive Ponting case. Both the judge and the government of the day were very much upset by it. I repeat that as a juryman you can and, in my view, should find the defendant not guilty if you find the law itself unjust, irrespective of whether the accused is "guilty" or not. That remains your right, at least for now. However, as the OP notes, nobody in the system, progressively inclined or not, will tell you that.

Everybody hates jury nullification except the jurors.

They'll try and tell you you can't do it, but as a juror you may render any verdict you like, for whatever reason you like, and the judge/prosecutor can do absolutely nothing at all about it once your verdict is read.

Jurors are, in fact, allowed to judge the law.

The key is to not give "jury nullification" as the reason.

well, after the fact, you can. But to my understanding they as a rule ask you if you believe in it beforehand. If you say yes, you will be stricken from the juror pool.

If you lie, say no, hear the case, and convince your 11 peers to acquit because you feel the law is unjust, there isn't anything the judge can do. He can't declare a mistrial at that point.

More likely you just create a hung jury, which is a mistrial.

Depends if you can convince them, I guess. If I was the only person willing to nullify the law, I'd probably change my vote unless it was something I felt very very strongly about.

So then you don't even really believe in your own principles.

"He can't declare a mistrial at that point."

He can if he instructed the jury that they are not allowed to do it. One of those cases I linked to earlier from the Wiki page on Jury Nullifaction determined just that and upheld a judge's right to instruct the jury that nullification is not an option.

Draugnar, I think you may be misinterpreting the law again. Did you read somewhere that a judge declared a mistrial after a jury acquitted a defendant?

@invictus no, I'm just smart enough to realize if I'm the only person who thinks a law is bullshit then I'm probably wrong, and probably shouldn't be forcing a mistrial based on that.

@draugnar you have shown that

1) judges dont have to inform the jury of the right to nullify
2) judges may actively prevent anybody from informing them of the concept
3) jurors may be removed if they admit they might use nullifications

Nowhere have I seen that after a verdict is rendered the case may be thrown out. Did I miss it?

What? A layman misinterpreting an obscure and complicated element of the law? Heaven forfend!

" if I'm the only person who thinks a law is bullshit then I'm probably wrong, and probably shouldn't be forcing a mistrial based on that."

So the opinions of a bunch of random people convince you not to follow through on nullification, but not the opinions of professionals who have dedicated their entire professional lives to knowledge of the law? Do you not see your hypocrisy and prejudice? I mean, go all the way down crazy lane or don't go down at all.

And again, I acknowledge jury nullification exists and is legitimate. But it's also impractical and goes against the principle of the law applying equally and consistently to everyone.

Basically, I'm not really sure what you're taking issue with. We both agree that it exists and is legitimate. We both agree it's impractical. You're only upset because I might hypothetically do it sometimes and might not in others? Where is this coming from? Perhaps you are also following my other active thread but aren't able to come up with a coherent response there, so you thought you'd come after your old pal YJ in this thread instead?


I'm sorry, but the ability to be open-minded to my own potential wrongs and willingness to compromise is not a bad thing. So yes, if I mildly disagree with a law, but after pleading my case with 11 people am unable to convince a single one of them, I see no reason to be so arrogant as to force a mistrial. That *may* change if it's a law I have huge moral convictions about. Your 'all-or-nothing' argument doesn't make sense to me. Would you not proceed very carefully and weight every decision since somebody's freedom is likely at stake?

Apparently this makes me crazy, hypocritical, and prejudiced? Wow.

Im curious why wouldn't you want to force a mistrial? Also, have you seen 12 Angry Men?

Exactly. A hung jury can effectively be the same thing as an acquittal, since the state often won't bother putting the time and resources in to try the case again when there are new ones piling up constantly. Obviously it's not really the same, but the guy walks and that's all he cares about in the end. If you'd rather give in than force a hung jury then you really are more committed to the romantic libertarian wet dream of jury nullification as an idea than the practical victory of getting basically the same result.