7 felonies for passing out jury nullification fliers

[fredtoast]

Jury nullification is not legal because during vior dire (jury selection) every juror is asked if they agree to follow and apply the law as written. If a juror does not agree with the law then he must excuse himself from jury duty. If he does not then he has committed perjury during vior dire for lying under oath.

Criminal law requires a unanimous verdict and it is insane to think it is a good idea to let one person who may think it is fine to rape children to let a child rapist go even when the state has proven he did it.

We live in a country that has a very fair basis for creating laws. One person can not just suddenly believe that the rule of law should not apply. Anyone who thinks one single nut job should be allowed to control a jury verdict in a criminal trial is also a nut job.

You are allowed to protest against unjust laws and do whatever possible to get them changed, but an individual is not allowed to substitute his judgement as to what the rule of law is.

[fredtoast]

BTW I doubt if this guy deserves 7 felonies, but what he is proposing is very dangerous.

[Devils Advocate]

Fred, nullification was used in the Roger Clemens case and in the kevorkian case. Don't say it's illegal when that's not true at all.



famous nullification cases

And let's keep in mind that nullification doesn't have to render a not guilty verdict. It coulda been used in a case such as George Zimmerman to find him guilty despite the 'Stand Your Ground' law.

[fredtoast]

(08-06-2015, 06:02 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Fred, nullification was used in the Roger Clemens case and in the kevorkian case. Don't say it's illegal when that's not true at all.

The jury did not rely on the theory of nullification in the Clemmons case.  I specifically remember them saying that they did not convict because the states main witness was not reliable.  Forget his name but it was the guy who worked for clemmons for years and claimed to have injected him with the steroids.

You have alink to a juror saying that the state had the proof to convict him but they acquitted because they did not agree with the law?

I stand by my position that if a juror says that he will uphold the law during Voir Dire he can be convicted of perjury for acquitting based on a disagreement with the law.

I'll do some more research, but I don't see any way this could be legal. It is a very dangerous principle. You have already pointed out that it was used to acquit white people who killed blacks. It could also be used to acquit a Muslim of a "honor killing", or a member of NAMBLA could acquit a child rapist. It completely goes against the theory of having any sort of "rule of law" that people have to follow.

[Devils Advocate]

(08-06-2015, 06:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The jury did not rely on the theory of nullification in the Clemmons case.  I specifically remember them saying that they did not convict because the states main witness was not reliable.  Forget his name but it was the guy who worked for clemmons for years and claimed to have injected him with the steroids.

You have alink to a juror saying that the state had the proof to convict him but they acquitted because they did not agree with the law?

I stand by my position that if a juror says that he will uphold the law during Voir Dire he can be convicted of perjury for acquitting based on a disagreement with the law.

I'll do some more research, but I don't see any way this could be legal.  It is a very dangerous principle.  You have already pointed out that it was used to acquit white people who killed blacks.  It could also be used to acquit a Muslim of a "honor killing", or a member of NAMBLA could acquit a child rapist.  It completely goes against the theory of having any sort of "rule of law" that people have to follow.

In addition to the link I edited in above
Clemons

Clemons

It seems to be a common held belief that nullification is what took place in the Clemons trial.

But there's many many more examples.  

I don't dispute the dangers of nullification. But let's not dispute the dangers of skewing the law in favor of prosecution either.   

[fredtoast]

(08-06-2015, 06:33 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: In addition to the link I edited in above
Clemons

Clemons

It seems to be a common held belief that nullification is what took place in the Clemons trial.

It is not a common belief at all.  Not one juror said they relied on nullification.  Instead of talking about a lot of "maybes" lets look at what the jurors actually said

One juror said the panel was troubled by the prosecution's reliance on McNamee.

"The defense showed that McNamee was a liar and once that was done, nothing that he said could hold up," juror Joyce Robinson-Paul told the New York Daily News.

[fredtoast]

(08-06-2015, 06:33 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: I don't dispute the dangers of nullification. But let's not dispute the dangers of skewing the law in favor of prosecution either.   

There is a danger of having crazy opinions on both sides.  And that is exactly why we have a neutral process for passing laws.  It is impossible to have any rule of law if one individual is allowed to decide what the law should be.

[Devils Advocate]

(08-06-2015, 08:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote:

(08-06-2015, 03:32 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Straight up with no penalties to keepers, I'd keep Peterson and Charles, reasoning is that both of them have already had multiple top 5 finishes, Hill and Anderson are not there yet.

Can you try to trade Hill and Anderson?

fredtoast
It is not a common belief at all.  Not one juror said they relied on nullification.  Instead  of talking about a lot of "maybes" lets look at what the jurors actually said

One juror said the panel was troubled by the prosecution's reliance on McNamee.

"The defense showed that McNamee was a liar and once that was done, nothing that he said could hold up," juror Joyce Robinson-Paul told the New York Daily News.

Joyce R-P, the juror you've quoted, is a political activist in Washington DC. 

She also had this to say


"You have these cutthroat thieves, murderers, drug dealers and drug addicts and you decide to go after somebody who had a reputation for trying to do his best and be the best that he can be, and you attack him," Robinson-Paul told The News.


Sounds like she maybe had preconceived notions of a 'just' trial, no?


I think it's safe to presume nullification could have played a role in this case. Just google 'roger Clemons jury nullification' and see how many hits you get. 


But this isn't about him. It's about the nullification and the fact that it is not illegal.  

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2015, 12:10 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: But this isn't about him. It's about the nullification and the fact that it is not illegal.  

It is illegal if you lie during voir dire, and every attorney I know asks the right questions during voir dire.

If you don't agree with the law then you are not qualified to sit on a jury.  Potential jurors are under oath during voir dire.  If you say you will uphold the law as it is written then don't do that you are committing perjury.

[Au165]

(08-06-2015, 04:02 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: I can agree with that. I'd like retract my earlier statement alluding to that. Still, a jury should be informed of the ability whether it's from the defense or elsewhere. In fact they were, up until the 1800's. 

No they are instructed to make a decision based on the laws, they are not asked to give their opinions on if a law should be followed or not. We elect people to do that not let randomly selected people make those decisions for us.

[6andcounting]

(08-06-2015, 11:25 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: The fact that nullification is an option. I've done jury duty before and not once was this ever brought to our attention.

Most judges forbid the defense from mentioning it. They would get contempt if they did. Sounds fairs.

(08-06-2015, 11:28 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Because it's not an option as far as the court is concerned.  A jury can do it, and in a not guilty verdict, there is nothing the court can do about it, but the jury is specifically told that they are to follow the law.  

Juries on criminal cases are considered "general juries." That gives them the right to vote 'not guilty' for any reason - including believing a law allegedly broken is unjust.

It was used to prevent convicted people under the Fugitive Slave Act and was so prevalent (in some areas/cities anyway) during prohibition that it was becoming a waste of time trying to nail bootleggers.

(08-06-2015, 11:36 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Sooooooooooooo, if a jury decides on nullifcation, how do they notify the judge?

"Have you reached a verdict?"
"We have."
"How do you find?"
"We find the defendant guilty, but we're nullifying the charges."

How funny would it be if this guy went to trial and his jury decided on nullification?

One or more jurors say "not guilty" and everyone goes home.

If this goes to trial his pamphlets would be read to the jury as evidence.

[6andcounting]

(08-06-2015, 05:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Jury nullification is not legal because during vior dire (jury selection) every juror is asked if they agree to follow and apply the law as written. If a juror does not agree with the law then he must excuse himself from jury duty. If he does not then he has committed perjury during vior dire for lying under oath.

Criminal law requires a unanimous verdict and it is insane to think it is a good idea to let one person who may think it is fine to rape children to let a child rapist go even when the state has proven he did it.

We live in a country that has a very fair basis for creating laws. One person can not just suddenly believe that the rule of law should not apply. Anyone who thinks one single nut job should be allowed to control a jury verdict in a criminal trial is also a nut job.

You are allowed to protest against unjust laws and do whatever possible to get them changed, but an individual is not allowed to substitute his judgement as to what the rule of law is.

Are individual jurors required to provide their reasoning for why they voted the way they did?

If they can say not guilty and leave it at that, it would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their reasoning was nullifying the law and that a statement was a lie during voir dire.

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2015, 04:37 PM)6andcounting Wrote: If this goes to trial his pamphlets would be read to the jury as evidence.

I have no idea if they have grounds to charge him with jury tampering, but as I have already explained, any juror who claims he has the right to refuse to follow the law as written will be excluded from the jury.

Why would we even have legislatures to draft laws if juries were not required to follow them?  It makes no sense at all, and is actually a very dangerous idea.

[6andcounting]

(08-07-2015, 04:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why would we even have legislatures to draft laws if juries were not required to follow them?  It makes no sense at all, and is actually a very dangerous idea.

I like it because it gives the little people a direct say in the rules that politicians make and enforce. It gives people a chance to avoid punishments for unjust laws.

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2015, 04:57 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I like it because it gives the little people a direct say in the rules that politicians make and enforce. It gives people a chance to avoid punishments for unjust laws.

The little people already elect the people who make the laws.  

All this does is give every crazy psycho the chance to say what the law is.  Do you really trust everyone out there to be reasonable on what they think the law should be?  This world is full of nutjobs, and we can't let them decide what the law is.

You want a radical Muslim to say that "honor killings" are justified?

Do you want a member of NAMBLA to say that child rape is legal?

This whole idea is insane.

[6andcounting]

(08-07-2015, 05:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The little people already elect the people who make the laws.  

I'm not so sure that laws on abortion, gay marriage, prostitution and medical or recreational marijuana share the same level of support now as when they were passed decades ago. It's not quick or easy to repeal a law. When the best chance a law gets repealed is a Supreme Court ruling forcing its removal, you know it's a slow process where change is only made when it's long overdue.

(08-07-2015, 05:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: All this does is give every crazy psycho the chance to say what the law is.  Do you really trust everyone out there to be reasonable on what they think the law should be?  This world is full of nutjobs, and we can't let them decide what the law is.

Crazy psychos and nutjobs in control of our laws and punishments for crimes? You mean exactly like right now?

I trust that no one is against murder simply because the state bans it. People are against murder because it denies a living person their most basic right. That's a right that we all understand exists with or without a state writing it down on paper.



And to respond to your edit that wasn't quoted in my reply - Do you really think a contempt charge is going to change someone's vote if they culturally and religiously believe honor killings are okay? Religion has always been slow to change and government persecution has never been an effective way to stop religious beliefs.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-06-2015, 08:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is a danger of having crazy opinions on both sides.  And that is exactly why we have a neutral process for passing laws.  It is impossible to have any rule of law if one individual is allowed to decide what the law should be.

But aren't individuals in the form of judges allowed to decide what the law should be when they make certain rulings? Yeah, they can be overturned on appeal and the ultimate (or should I say "Supreme") authority is a judgement made by 9 individuals, but single judges have decided what the law should be even today.

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2015, 05:12 PM)6andcounting Wrote: And to respond to your edit that wasn't quoted in my reply - Do you really think a contempt charge is going to change someone's vote if they culturally and religiously believe honor killings are okay? Religion has always been slow to change and government persecution has never been an effective way to stop religious beliefs.

I don't even understand what you are trying to say here.  Right now if a person commits an honor killingf he can be prosecuted and punished for it.  But if we allow jury nullifiucation one person on a jury can let a killer go because he agrees that honor killings are justified.

I am in no way talking about changing religious bekiefs.  All I am saying is that as citizens we should be allowed to pass laws that say honor killings are not justified and if you commit one then you will be punished.

Are you saying that we should not be allowed to punish people who believe honor killings are justified?

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2015, 05:12 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Crazy psychos and nutjobs in control of our laws and punishments for crimes? You mean exactly like right now?

What does this mean?  Are there places wher child rape is legal because NAMBLA supports it?

Are there [places in the UNited States where honor killings are justified?

Please explain what you mean by this statement

[6andcounting]

(08-08-2015, 04:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't even understand what you are trying to say here.  Right now if a person commits an honor killingf he can be prosecuted and punished for it.  But if we allow jury nullifiucation one person on a jury can let a killer go because he agrees that honor killings are justified.

We do allow jury nullification and no murderer has ever gotten off because one of the jurors decided it was okay.