Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case(reason.com)
reason.com
Man arrested for promoting jury nullification wins federal case
https://reason.com/2022/08/05/he-was-arrested-for-promoting-jury-nullification-a-federal-court-says-that-was-illegal/
435 comments
CGP Grey has a video discussing jury nullification, for those interested in a further explanation of the subject: https://youtu.be/uqH_Y1TupoQ
Jury nullification is just one manifestation of good-ol'-boy-ism.
Good-ol'-boy-ism is a good thing when it let's the sheriff of Mayberry teach a kid a lesson without making him a felon and ruining his future.
Good-ol'-boyism is a horrible thing when it let's the sheriff of Mayberry teach a kid a lesson, making him a felon and ruining his future.
I have personally benefited from the former. I don't know how to reconcile the latter when the only difference was the kid's last name, or skin color, or religion. Every good thing can be abused. Sometimes the scale of abuse calls for the abolition of the "good thing". Sometimes it is better to tolerate some abuse because of the scale of good that comes from the good thing.
For me, this train of thought always breaks down to reasoning that good-ol'-boy-ism is good when the ol'-boys are good and bad when the ol'-boys are bad. But that's obviously broken when 'good' or 'bad' is left to the decision of the ol'-boys. Historically, we just have constant war to decide who gets to be the ol'-boys this week.
Good-ol'-boy-ism is a good thing when it let's the sheriff of Mayberry teach a kid a lesson without making him a felon and ruining his future.
Good-ol'-boyism is a horrible thing when it let's the sheriff of Mayberry teach a kid a lesson, making him a felon and ruining his future.
I have personally benefited from the former. I don't know how to reconcile the latter when the only difference was the kid's last name, or skin color, or religion. Every good thing can be abused. Sometimes the scale of abuse calls for the abolition of the "good thing". Sometimes it is better to tolerate some abuse because of the scale of good that comes from the good thing.
For me, this train of thought always breaks down to reasoning that good-ol'-boy-ism is good when the ol'-boys are good and bad when the ol'-boys are bad. But that's obviously broken when 'good' or 'bad' is left to the decision of the ol'-boys. Historically, we just have constant war to decide who gets to be the ol'-boys this week.
Some quotations...
for me, the quote from Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is important: 'The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts.'
https://www.jurorsrule.com/quotations-and-comments-on-fully-...
for me, the quote from Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is important: 'The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts.'
https://www.jurorsrule.com/quotations-and-comments-on-fully-...
Is jury nullification the ultimate trump card? From what little I know about it, it seems that if enough people in a community knew about it, they could 100% control what crimes are punished in that community. On face value, that makes a sort of sense intuitively, but obviously it has to be balanced against crimes that are in principle clearly wrong, despite what a local community believes.
If jury nullification doesn’t exist, then juries are pointless
I wonder what portion of jurors know what jury nullification is? I've always thought I could simply utter those words and get out of any jury duty. Not that I would, I would love to serve on a jury.
I also wonder how many HN readers would be allowed on a jury?
I also wonder how many HN readers would be allowed on a jury?
> he was in violation of a New York law barring people from standing within 200 feet of a courthouse "calling for or demanding any specified action or determination by such court or jury"
Simiarly: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-abortion-zones/...
Simiarly: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-abortion-zones/...
Someone told me that knowing what jury nullification is can get you out of jury duty, because if the attorneys find out you know what it is during the jury selection process, they won't want you on the jury. I don't know if that's true though.
Has there ever been a case where a jury has actually “invoked” nullification? I put quotes because a jury wouldn’t directly invoke nullification, they would just present a finding clearly contrary to the evidence. Follow up question, does a jury have to provide any reasoning for their finding? Or just the finding itself?
In the UK jury nullification came into the spotlight at the beginning of this year when four people who helped topple a statue of a slave trader in Bristol were found not guilty by a jury, even though they admitted doing so and there was video & photo evidence. The jury decided that they had acceptable reasons for their actions. [1]
The reaction from the right wing government and its supporters was barely short of apoplexy, followed by promises to appeal the verdict and change the law to remove this as an option for juries. (So far I don't believe any such legal changes have been made.)
Jury nullification is one of the strengths of the jury system, allowing a representation of the public decide if an act was truly criminal, and should be protected, otherwise it's just 12 people following a decision tree and no better than trial by judge.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/05/four-cleared...
The reaction from the right wing government and its supporters was barely short of apoplexy, followed by promises to appeal the verdict and change the law to remove this as an option for juries. (So far I don't believe any such legal changes have been made.)
Jury nullification is one of the strengths of the jury system, allowing a representation of the public decide if an act was truly criminal, and should be protected, otherwise it's just 12 people following a decision tree and no better than trial by judge.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/05/four-cleared...
"Picard says he'll be back to his advocacy now that the case has concluded, though it remains to be seen how the government will answer the above questions."
Hero.
Hero.
The jury's task in a criminal trial is to determine guilt or innocence based on the uncontested facts and the evidence (In the USA, I gather they can also recommend a verdict). That doesn't leave a lot of room for the jury to decide which laws ought to be enforced.
I suppose it's reasonable for a jury to decide that a prosecution should not have been brought, even if the criminal act can be shown to have occurred. I don't know what other body is in a position to make that determination, so I guess that in some kind of "natural law" view, returning an innocent verdict when the facts say guilty, is morally permissible.
But I'm not OK with juries deciding what the law is, or just completely ignoring the law. My experience (IANAL) is that jurors are interested in the judicial process, assess evidence carefully, and try hard to return a "correct" verdict.
I haven't served on a real jury; I did serve on a mock jury, in a mock trial for training advocates (barristers). It was a date-rape trial, and the "evidence" was equivocal. Interestingly, although all the jurors were sincere and honourable, the jury split male/female on the verdict (I'm a male, and I came down on the male side of the split).
I suppose it's reasonable for a jury to decide that a prosecution should not have been brought, even if the criminal act can be shown to have occurred. I don't know what other body is in a position to make that determination, so I guess that in some kind of "natural law" view, returning an innocent verdict when the facts say guilty, is morally permissible.
But I'm not OK with juries deciding what the law is, or just completely ignoring the law. My experience (IANAL) is that jurors are interested in the judicial process, assess evidence carefully, and try hard to return a "correct" verdict.
I haven't served on a real jury; I did serve on a mock jury, in a mock trial for training advocates (barristers). It was a date-rape trial, and the "evidence" was equivocal. Interestingly, although all the jurors were sincere and honourable, the jury split male/female on the verdict (I'm a male, and I came down on the male side of the split).
Seems pretty reasonable result as he wasn’t targeting a specific case.
I do think fans of jury nullification overestimate how much juries would be interested in such things.
I do think fans of jury nullification overestimate how much juries would be interested in such things.
Perhaps a proper addressing of "Should this law be a law?" be considered, before the case is presented?
That way, the jury can decide, without any evidence, if a law is just. And that should be with as many biases removed, including things like sex, gender, skin color, clothing, etc.
There's always a disconnect in republics between the populace and the representatives. Reps may pass laws the populace doesn't want, and the reps say "we know your best interest". And, getting laws to legalize illegal things usually end up in its own malthusian trap of "politician is soft on crime!"
That way, the jury can decide, without any evidence, if a law is just. And that should be with as many biases removed, including things like sex, gender, skin color, clothing, etc.
There's always a disconnect in republics between the populace and the representatives. Reps may pass laws the populace doesn't want, and the reps say "we know your best interest". And, getting laws to legalize illegal things usually end up in its own malthusian trap of "politician is soft on crime!"
What most people overlook when considering the power of jury nullification is that like almost all other powers of participants in our legal system there needs to be checks and balances.
The check and balance on jury nullification is not telling people that it exists. Yes, it is a pretty crappy check and balance, but no one has been able to come up with a better one.
The check and balance on jury nullification is not telling people that it exists. Yes, it is a pretty crappy check and balance, but no one has been able to come up with a better one.
The article omits that it was the ACLU who filed the lawsuit on Picard's behalf: https://www.aclu.org/cases/picard-v-magliano
Does the door open to the other side, which is an all-white jury finding Ruben Carter guilty?
phew that was a close one
Now, we need to pay attention to Presidents, DoJ Attorneys, and District Attorneys who pick and choose which laws to enforce, based upon their politics. It's interesting how they aren't getting charged for those actions.