I've got jury duty in three weeks

[Maximus]

Can someone help me out on how to actually invoke jury nullification?

Let's say I get picked for the trial, the trial happens, the jury goes to deliberate, the other jurors ask me if I think the person is guilty or innocent and I say "nullify"?

Note that I don't know the case, so I may vote guilty or innocent, but I'd like to know how one actually cites and carries out nullification.

[Melissa]

Well you probably wont even have jury duty most cases get plea bargined. I had jury duty 2x last year and both times I was supposed to call the night before and they said all cases are cleared so I did not have to go. And what you are doing is nullifying the law that they are using agains the defendent. Lets take a tax case. If the person is guilty but you think the law is bad you would vote not guilty based on the law being bad so they defendent can't be gulity of a bad law. You must get others jurors to agree to

[Lucille]

Congratulations!

http://fija.org/

First thing's first:

http://fija.org/download/BR_YYYY_sur..._voir_dire.pdf

http://fija.org/2011/01/21/freedom-f...for-liberty-4/

If you survive Voir Dire (which I did not, sadly. The judge must have had experience with nullification advocates since his question was quite direct.):

http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_If_you_a..._Jury_Duty.pdf

http://fija.org/download/JG_Jurors_Handbook.pdf

[WilliamC]

Just don't say a word about it.

Go through the process, and if you actually get to sit on a trial then decide for yourself if the accused is being tried for an actual crime against person or property or a crime against the State.

If the latter just refuse to convict. You don't need to give any reason except that you weren't convinced that the accused was guilty. Period.

[fisharmor]

If you survive Voir Dire (which I did not, sadly. The judge must have had experience with nullification advocates since his question was quite direct.)

This supports the idea that the best way to get out of jury duty is to openly state that you understand the concept of nullification...
The silver lining there is that they're on the lookout for us! We keep preaching nullification, and eventually they'll either have to radically increase costs of jury trials as they try to find people who haven't heard about it, or they'll have to start admitting us.
(Or, there's the third option, which is to do away with juries....)

[Pericles]

This supports the idea that the best way to get out of jury duty is to openly state that you understand the concept of nullification...
The silver lining there is that they're on the lookout for us! We keep preaching nullification, and eventually they'll either have to radically increase costs of jury trials as they try to find people who haven't heard about it, or they'll have to start admitting us.
(Or, there's the third option, which is to do away with juries....)

Or, out lawyer the system. Assuming they ask the question as "Can you convict based solely on the facts presented without considering whether or not you agree with the law?" Sure - I could - I just don't say that I won't.

[specsaregood]

Let's say I get picked for the trial, the trial happens, the jury goes to deliberate, the other jurors ask me if I think the person is guilty or innocent and I say "nullify"?

No, only say nullify or mention nullification if you want to be removed from the jury and replaced with an alternate.

[payme_rick]

Interesting, for some odd reason or other I thought of this the other day, for probably an hour... "What if I am on a jury and disagree with the law? How do I turn the other jurors in agreeing with ME?"

I came to the conclusion that I would let everyone get their opinions on the case itself with the buts/ifs/blahblahs out of the way until it got to the decision point... Then I'd just simply ask, "have any of you guys ever heard of jury nullification?" And then explain it in terms that makes the jury feel even more important that day, in a sense that they are above the law, not just involved in its process... I'd present it to them in a way where they thought of it as it's a cool new toy to play with or something... Make them feel even more special...

How to explain it to them that way? That I don't know, but at first I would avoid sounding preachy, just informative...

[specsaregood]

//

[payme_rick]

Okay specs, then don't let the judge know you're against the law by sending him a note prior to verdict pretty much telling him you're against the law...

If you can turn a jury without the judge finding out, then you can nullify...

[specsaregood]

Okay specs, then don't let the judge know you're against the law by sending him a note prior to verdict pretty much telling him you're against the law...
If you can turn a jury without the judge finding out, then you can nullify...

I don't think he specifically sent the note. All it would take is 1 person on the jury to not like what you are doing and blow your cover. Which would be likely if there were people that just wanted to convict and get back to their real life.

[payme_rick]

I understand that... But what's the penalty for being replaced on the jury, you don't get to see the verdict given live and in person?

So you just don't try at all?

No, you try in the best way possible, and that is why I gave my opinion on what I feel is the best way...

[specsaregood]

I understand that... But what's the penalty for being replaced on the jury, you don't get to see the verdict given live and in person?
So you just don't try at all?
No, you try in the best way possible, and that is why I gave my opinion on what I feel is the best way...

No, I would just keep my mouth shut and say "not guilty" if I deemed the law unjust. Hang the jury.

[Dr.3D]

No, I would just keep my mouth shut and say "not guilty" if I deemed the law unjust. Hang the jury.

Then they will just have another trial.

[specsaregood]

Then they will just have another trial.

Maybe, depends on whether they estimate that they have a better chance of winning and if they have the time.
Hell, you could argue points for "not guilty" with the rest of the jury. You might get some on your side.

But as soon as you argue the validity of the law, somebody is gonna tattle and get your removed.

[Dr.3D]

Maybe, depends on whether they estimate that they have a better chance of winning and if they have the time.
Hell, you could argue points for "not guilty" with the rest of the jury. You might get some on your side.

But as soon as you argue the validity of the law, somebody is gonna tattle and get your removed.

I sat on a rape trial and one woman wouldn't vote guilty, the jury was hung and dismissed. They then had another trial and got the unanimous verdict of guilty.

[fisharmor]

I sat on a rape trial and one woman wouldn't vote guilty, the jury was hung and dismissed. They then had another trial and got the unanimous verdict of guilty.

The nullification concept is coming up a lot recently (thanks Tom Woods), but putting that aside, I'd like to know how retrying the accused when you don't like the result isn't a clear case of double jeopardy.

[Dr.3D]

The nullification concept is coming up a lot recently (thanks Tom Woods), but putting that aside, I'd like to know how retrying the accused when you don't like the result isn't a clear case of double jeopardy.

A hung jury has no guilty/not guilty result thus they have another trial.

[DamianTV]

Guerrilla Jurors: Sticking it to Leviathan

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig12/doig1.1.1.html

[fisharmor]

A hung jury has no guilty/not guilty result thus they have another trial.

"the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury"
"nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"

So, this doesn't go on to say "unless you haven't reached a verdict where the jury is in complete agreement".
Are we taking this literally, that double jeopardy only applies in cases that might result in capital punishment?

"and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
This doesn't say "no fact tried by a jury where they came up with a definite verdict".
Is there actually a common law provision for this? Is there actually a common law at all?

[Dr.3D]

"the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury"
"nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"

So, this doesn't go on to say "unless you haven't reached a verdict where the jury is in complete agreement".
Are we taking this literally, that double jeopardy only applies in cases that might result in capital punishment?

"and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
This doesn't say "no fact tried by a jury where they came up with a definite verdict".
Is there actually a common law provision for this? Is there actually a common law at all?

I just told you what happened when I sat on a rape trial. I have no idea what reason they are using to have a second trial, but all of the evidence was toward the accused being guilty. The excuse the woman juror had was that she couldn't do that to the boy. The jury was hung and a new trial commenced the next week.

[specsaregood]

I just told you what happened when I sat on a rape trial. I have no idea what reason they are using to have a second trial, but all of the evidence was toward the accused being guilty. The excuse the woman juror had was that she couldn't do that to the boy. The jury was hung and a new trial commenced the next week.

And it probably should have. But when a jury hangs the prosecution has to take into account the likelihood of getting a conviction of they retry and if they have time on their schedule for it. In the case of rape, I can see them making time. In the the case of a non-violent crime? probably not so much. Also either way I would think it would make the prosecution more flexible in plea deal making.

[Dr.3D]

And it probably should have. But when a jury hangs the prosecution has to take into account the likelihood of getting a conviction of they retry and if they have time on their schedule for it. In the case of rape, I can see them making time. In the the case of a non-violent crime? probably not so much. Also either way I would think it would make the prosecution more flexible in plea deal making.

This might help..... http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h018.htm

[Anti Federalist]

Interesting, for some odd reason or other I thought of this the other day, for probably an hour... "What if I am on a jury and disagree with the law? How do I turn the other jurors in agreeing with ME?"

I came to the conclusion that I would let everyone get their opinions on the case itself with the buts/ifs/blahblahs out of the way until it got to the decision point... Then I'd just simply ask, "have any of you guys ever heard of jury nullification?" And then explain it in terms that makes the jury feel even more important that day, in a sense that they are above the law, not just involved in its process... I'd present it to them in a way where they thought of it as it's a cool new toy to play with or something... Make them feel even more special...

How to explain it to them that way? That I don't know, but at first I would avoid sounding preachy, just informative...

Best course of action to prevent possible legal headaches.

Just say you honestly feel that the state did not make it's case and you have reasonable doubt.

Maybe not about the facts but the law itself.

[Eric21ND]

None violent drug case find them not guilty. Same goes with taxes, and that liberty dollar guy.

[Theocrat]

[mczerone]

The nullification concept is coming up a lot recently (thanks Tom Woods), but putting that aside, I'd like to know how retrying the accused when you don't like the result isn't a clear case of double jeopardy.

It doesn't get retried. The judge looks at the jury verdict, waves his magic wand, and comes back with a "JNOV", a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. He writes down that "Given the evidence on record, no reasonable jury could have found the facts in the way the jury did. Therefore I hold that the facts clearly prove X did Y, and enter a guilty verdict."

The jury is just another puppet show, and unless the case is a "close one", jury nullification is as useful a tool as an eggbeater (unless the judge is sympathetic, and some are).

[Acala]

It doesn't get retried. The judge looks at the jury verdict, waves his magic wand, and comes back with a "JNOV", a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. He writes down that "Given the evidence on record, no reasonable jury could have found the facts in the way the jury did. Therefore I hold that the facts clearly prove X did Y, and enter a guilty verdict."

A JNOV in a criminal case? I don't think so.

To the OP, you are getting mostly good advice. Do not mention nullification at any time to anyone or YOU will be nullified. Just vote not guilty. If you want to argue with the jury about the FACTS and reasonable doubt ABOUT the FACTS, not the law, fine. But DON'T mention nullification and DON'T tell anyone that you don't agree with the law or doubt the government's authority. The judge and the prosecutors deny you the ability to judge the law but must respect your judgement of the facts.

If the jury is hung, the case might be retried with a new jury. Oh well. You did your part and can rest easy.

[Anti Federalist]

Jury Nullification

by David Macaray / March 25th, 2011

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/03/jury-nullification/

It’s odd to hear people sum up the American judicial system this way: “It may not be perfect, but it’s the best damn system there is.” Really? Are you sure about that? What other legal systems are you familiar with? For example, what do they have in Iceland? In Spain? In Brazil? Of course, when you ask these questions no one ever has an answer. Nonetheless, they’re convinced ours is the best.

Unlike most Americans, I look forward to jury duty. Bizarre as it sounds, I regard it as not only an opportunity to observe firsthand the “best damn system in the world,” but an effortless way of meeting and talking with new people. Admittedly, while most of these folks are nervous wrecks, resentful and fearful at having been summoned to this intimidating place, they’re usually willing to talk.

I’ve served on eight trials, ranging from a six-week personal injury lawsuit to a conservancy hearing (a schizophrenic petitioning to be released from a county mental institution) to several armed robberies. What have these experiences taught me about the judicial system? They’ve taught me what they’ve taught every other veteran juror….that real court ain’t like television court.

First of all, it’s a shock to see how boring and nondescript real lawyers are. They’re more like accountants than lawyers. They have no charisma, no charm, no twinkle in their eye; they exhibit no brilliance, no flair, no wit, no idiosyncrasies. Very un-television like. In truth, most lawyers are simply legal journeyman, shoemakers doing their jobs.

And some of the things I’ve seen in court have been weirdly unprofessional, something no scriptwriter would ever let slip by. For instance, I heard this actual exchange, word for word, during an armed robbery trial in Superior Court in Santa Ana, California. A woman who had witnessed a convenience store being robbed was being questioned by the prosecutor.

Prosecutor: “Did you see a person enter the store?”

Woman: “Yes, I did.”

Prosecutor: “What time did you see this person enter, approximately?”

Woman: “Approximately 9:15 P.M.”

Prosecutor: “Was this person a man or woman?”

Woman: “A man.”

Prosecutor: “What was his nationality?”

Woman: “Negro.”

The last trial I sat on was a spousal battery case, held in Norwalk Superior Court, in Los Angeles County. The facts were these: A woman called 9-11 and reported that her boyfriend had physically assaulted her. When the police arrived she told them he had kicked her in the backside as she tried to grab the TV remote control device. The boyfriend admitted, technically, to kicking her but insisted it was more a “push with his foot” than a “kick.”

Three people took the witness stand: the woman, the man, and one of the cops (a policewoman). The victim was a stocky woman with a loud, booming voice. One of our jurors later described her as “menacing.” The man was exceedingly thin, almost frail looking, with a long, wispy Fu Manchu goatee.

The victim completely recanted her story. She denied everything. She said his foot had barely grazed her bottom, that she’d been “pissed at him all day,” and that she’d called the police because she wanted to “teach him a lesson.” The man basically agreed with her. She was loud and confident; he was soft-spoken and timid.

The cop disputed both of them. She said the woman had been very upset — upset enough to call 911 — and was crying when the police arrived. The man had kicked her (albeit with a bare foot), and grudgingly admitted to it. The policewoman testified that, in her professional judgment, this constituted battery. He was arrested and taken to jail.

The prosecutor had set up a flipchart with a copy of the statute’s pertinent language, the meaning of which couldn’t have been clearer. It is unlawful to grab, hit, kick, etc. another person, even if the “assault” leaves no blood, bruises, welts, or marks of any kind. The extent of the injury is irrelevant. It’s the intent that matters. You aggressively kick someone in the butt, you’ve committed battery.

In his summation, the prosecutor told us that if we believed he had kicked her — which, he argued, couldn’t be disputed — then we had no choice. The law was clear. It was our duty to find him guilty of battery. The man’s lawyer summed it up by telling us the whole thing had been a terrible misunderstanding. Just listen to what the woman said. It never happened. With that, we retired to the jury room.

They elected me foreman….even though I pleaded with them not to. Having heard me say during my jury interview that I’d been on seven previous trials, they unwisely concluded that I was the “most qualified.” I was disappointed. Being foreman is constraining because, if you’re conscientious, you realize you can’t offer too many opinions without looking like you’re trying to dominate the proceedings.

The first thing I did was ask for a show of hands from everyone who believed the man had kicked her. All twelve of us raised our hands. Okay, it was unanimous. Then, following standard procedure, I passed around sheets of paper and asked everyone to write down Guilty or Not Guilty, and pass the sheets back to me. The count was 11 to 1. Not Guilty.

It was a glorious moment. I couldn’t have been prouder of my fellow jurors. Despite what the prosecutor told us about doing our duty, and despite the law being crystal clear in this matter, we had decided to do the right thing, the fair thing. We had decided that this guy shouldn’t be convicted.

Well, at least eleven of us had decided that. The lone holdout was a man in his forties, a mechanical engineer. “Didn’t you hear what the D.A. told us?” he said plaintively. “Even if we wanted to, we don’t have the right to ignore the law.” When one of the jurors asked if he “agreed” with the way the law was written, he was stunned. “It doesn’t matter if I agree or not,” he said. “The law is the law.”

Wrong. We told him it wasn’t our job to enforce the law. That was their job. Our job was to do the right thing. And if the County of Los Angeles didn’t trust a jury to reach the right and proper decision, then they shouldn’t have given us that authority.

We asked him: Do you really believe this guy should risk going to jail? He thought about it a long, careful moment and said he did not. Then are you willing to along with the rest of us and cut him loose? Reluctantly, he agreed. Okay. All in favor of Not Guilty, raise your hand. All twelve hands went up. Deliberations were finished. They had taken thirty-five minutes.

After the trial, I approached the two lawyers as they left the courtroom. I was curious if the prosecutor had been shocked or dismayed by our verdict. Clearly, he wasn’t. “I thought it was a fair decision,” he said pleasantly. His exact words. The other lawyer — the public defender — nodded in agreement.

If he thought it was a “fair” decision, then why did his office prosecute this guy in the first place? The answer is that the American legal system has become an industry unto itself, one that supplies lucrative jobs to judges and private attorneys, and decent jobs to public defenders, bailiffs, prison guards, probation officers, expert witnesses, et al.

While the System clearly benefits those with the jobs, it clearly hurts people who get stuck with convictions that are meted out not from of a sense of justice, but for “administrative” reasons. These convictions follow them the rest of their lives, and prevent them from even getting jobs because they now have criminal records. We did our small part to fix that.