When can jury nullification be applied under current rulings?

[guzzijohn]

There have been several references in various threads about jury nullification. A few make it sound like it can be used at any time under any circumstance, I am not so sure.
GuzziJohn

From Wikipedia:

In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction that "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification."[37]  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).[38] The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification.

[beerbelly]

It is not hard I have been the cause of a hung jury. Just vote the way you want and keep your mouth shut! No one can tell you how to vote.
                            Beerbelly

[Pat/Rick]

The supreme court has ruled (IIRC 189?) that a judge does not have to inform the jury of their rights to exercise Jury Nullification. The prosecution is certainly not going to mention it. Woe be to the defense council that mentions it. The basic rights and intention of a jury as meant to be by our founding fathers was that a juror is trusted with not only judging the accused, but the laws they are being tried under. IF you do exercise J.N. DO NOT tell anyone in so many words. The case will be retried with a different "stacked jury", what do you really think the questions are for? I of course would never exercise it in cases where someone was attacked, robbed, or done wrong, or any other heinous crime. If someone was defending themselves or family with deadly force I would not convict them. I would however in the case of fed or local gov't, where they were exceeding the Constitution vote not guilty and reply with "I did not think there was sufficient evidence for a guilty vote". Lawyers will more often than not tell you you cannot do it, it throws a wrench into their game and allows you/us to intrude into their domain of insuring our compliance. A judge will instruct the jury that they have to judge their case according to the written letter of the law. This is a lie and false instruction. when a judge tells a jury to disregard statement or testimony that a juror thinks is prudent to the case that is also false and a lie. A judge can be just as guilty as anyone else for witholding evidence that is deemed necessary to the case. There are two good articles at backwoods home .com in the left column under articles.
 Jury Nullification IS as American as baseball and apple pie. It was used in colonial America to free patriots from tyrannical crown rule.
 Attorneys and judges are only interested in a good conviction record. That is what is necessary for them to advance. Our court/legal system is good when viewed at its base and meaning. Like gov't it has been corrupted, into the dept that insures tyranny will stay in place.
  In short, anytime you feel a law is unconstitutional, unfair, oppresive or tyrannical you can vote not guilty. Enough votes like that and the law will quit being used.I have been researching and trying to learn about it for a couple years now as I still consider myself a student even to the Constitution. Also Courts will try to tri under admirlty law as well but I am still working on that one.I am by no means an expert. Good luck in your studies.

[Hooker]

This what they don't want you to know.
http://www.lizmichael.com/rulebook.html

Pat

[Pat/Rick]

Thankyou much for posting that link. I have mis located my hard copy of that pamphlet after moving. This is the one that got me started. Thanks Hooker.

[dukkillr]

I would venture that in order to excercise your "right" to nullify a jury you will be required to lie under oath. 

[blind ear]

If someone was defending themselves or family with deadly force I would not convict them. I would however in the case of fed or local gov't, where they were exceeding the Constitution vote not guilty and reply with "I did not think there was sufficient evidence for a guilty vote".

If my judjement is that there is not enough evidence, I am not lieing. eddiegjr

[billy_56081]

I would venture that in order to excercise your "right" to nullify a jury you will be required to lie under oath. 

Please explain?

[dukkillr]

I would venture that in order to excercise your "right" to nullify a jury you will be required to lie under oath.  

Please explain?

In the process of selecting jurors from the pool everyone is placed under oath and asked various questions.  Each trial is different obviously, since they have different lawyers asking the questions, but I have never heard or seen a selection where they didn't ask a series of questions regarding the prospective jurors' ability to follow the law and ignore their own rules, moral codes, perceived pseudo-law, or "special expertise".  

I don't think one could get through many voir dires without lying at some point, assuming that you were planning on exercising your "right" to jury nullification.  

Also of note is that nullification will probably only result in a mistrial, which usually results in a retrial.  

[45-70.gov]

a  juror  is a powerful  person in this country!!!!

why  do so many people  avoid having this  power???

decisions are  made in this  country
by people  too  stupid to get out of jury duty
this  needs to change

[Pat/Rick]

I would venture that in order to excercise your "right" to nullify a jury you will be required to lie under oath. 

More than likely. ANY attorney will tell you that, that is indeed the case.Instructions to the jurors are in place to deceive the jurors and give them false instructions. BUT it IS okay for the judge not to be required to include the right of Jury Nullification in the Instructions to the jurors, so exactly whom is deceiving whom here?? The jurors instructions are given to insure that the jurors go along with a corrupt judicial system and to strip rights away from the people.
 I would doubt ANY attorney would spill the beans as it were, about any clauses or loop holes that would verify the peoples right to Jury Nullification. The legal(?) system is a closed loop that common man aka peasents are not to be allowed into. The judicial system and its members are just as corrupt as our government and true justice is reserved only to the wealthy to keep the club intact. There is no person in this nation guilty of any crime that the corrupt gov't of this nation hasn't already committed. Jury nullification is also known as a hung jury.
  Any attorneys out there that want to divulge the secrets??  C'mon, we're waiting.

[blind ear]

I would venture that in order to excercise your "right" to nullify a jury you will be required to lie under oath. 

More than likely. ANY attorney will tell you that, that is indeed the case.Instructions to the jurors are in place to deceive the jurors and give them false instructions. BUT it IS okay for the judge not to be required to include the right of Jury Nullification in the Instructions to the jurors, so exactly whom is deceiving whom here?? The jurors instructions are given to insure that the jurors go along with a corrupt judicial system and to strip rights away from the people.
 I would doubt ANY attorney would spill the beans as it were, about any clauses or loop holes that would verify the peoples right to Jury Nullification. The legal(?) system is a closed loop that common man aka peasents are not to be allowed into. The judicial system and its members are just as corrupt as our government and true justice is reserved only to the wealthy to keep the club intact. There is no person in this nation guilty of any crime that the corrupt gov't of this nation hasn't already committed. Jury nullification is also known as a hung jury.
  Any attorneys out there that want to divulge the secrets??  C'mon, we're waiting.

I would venture that in order to excercise your "right" to nullify a jury you will be required to lie under oath. 

Please explain?

In the process of selecting jurors from the pool everyone is placed under oath and asked various questions.  Each trial is different obviously, since they have different lawyers asking the questions, but I have never heard or seen a selection where they didn't ask a series of questions regarding the prospective jurors' ability to follow the law and ignore their own rules, moral codes, perceived pseudo-law, or "special expertise". 

I don't think one could get through many voir dires without lying at some point, assuming that you were planning on exercising your "right" to jury nullification. 

Also of note is that nullification will probably only result in a mistrial, which usually results in a retrial. 

The state is programming us to serve the state by eleminating our right to think for ourselves. That is what all of our politics are about today, wheather we will think for ourselves, and humanity, or serve the state snd let the state sensor our thinking and tell us what we can think.

If I decide there "is not enough evidence" it can be based on my right as a human to think that the law is unjust and should not stand. That is what freedoms most basic principal must be, the right to decide , to think, for ourselves and not have the state sensor and control our thinking.

eddiegjr

[beerbelly]

I have done it twice. I used to get called for jury duty regular as clock work. But since I was the lone hold out on two juries I have not been called again!
  They know what is going on in that supposedly secret deliberations. They are also crooked enough that they will only call people that will do as they are told!
                               Beerbelly

[SHOOTALL]

I would venture that in order to excercise your "right" to nullify a jury you will be required to lie under oath. 

why ?

[dukkillr]

I would venture that in order to excercise your "right" to nullify a jury you will be required to lie under oath. 

why ?

Check above.

[SHOOTALL]

I don't see. If it is legal to vote as you see then it is not lieing to follow the law that allowes it

[dukkillr]

It is illegal to lie under oath.  During the voir dire the attorneys will be asking the prospective jurors various questions regarding their ability to follow the law as the judge gives it to you and make a decision based soley on the evidence presented to you and that law.  I doubt most jurors could get through a selection without lying if they intended to use their "right" of jury nullification.

Now this discussion has gotten somewhat confused because jurors always have the right to vote based on the evidence presented.  Jury nullification is the voting based on your own beliefs AND NOT on the evidence presented.  There is no debate that jurors can always vote the way they see fit based entirely on what they have seen during the trial.

Jury nullification is NOT the same as a hung jury, it's not even similar.

[SHOOTALL]

I still don't see the lie. I do see nullification as a return of not guilty , maybe by more than one jury.

[MGMorden]

I still don't see the lie. I do see nullification as a return of not guilty , maybe by more than one jury.

Put simply: if you don't think there's enough evidence that's one thing.  That's following the law, as you swore under oath to do.  However, saying "I don't agree with this law in principle so I'm not going to vote guilty." is markedly different from "not enough evidence".  In that case you're blatantly disregarding a law when in order to retain your position as a juror you swore that you'd uphold it.

[dukkillr]

I still don't see the lie. I do see nullification as a return of not guilty , maybe by more than one jury.

Put simply: if you don't think there's enough evidence that's one thing.  That's following the law, as you swore under oath to do.  However, saying "I don't agree with this law in principle so I'm not going to vote guilty." is markedly different from "not enough evidence".  In that case you're blatantly disregarding a law when in order to retain your position as a juror you swore that you'd uphold it.

Holy cow... why couldn't I put it that well?

[Pat/Rick]

I would venture that in order to excercise your "right" to nullify a jury you will be required to lie under oath.  

why ?

Before a trial, the jurors are given instructions by the judge. The jurors are usually instructed that the jury is to decide the case on written law. That means as the law is written. That in itself, strips the right of jury nullification from the jurors.SCOTUS has said that a judge not need to inform jurors of their rights to J.N. That act gives them leeway to make laws/instructions against. To disregard those instructions could "legally"find a juror in contempt of court or at least guilty of pergory(SP?).That would/could yield its own set of problems. Those are false instructions! The people who serve on juries 99.99% of the time will not know that. Excuse me for saying so but, the courts rely on stupid jurors. Meaning that the average person knows nothing of the courts its preceedings, the civil laws and codes, let alone their own Nations Constitution or their states. Wash. state constitution start off saying The Constitution of the USA is the supreme law of the land. Meaning, that it superceeds ALL state law in disagreement with it. ALOT of our laws counter other laws on the books. One law may say that people cannot have xyz's at any time, while another law may say that xyz's in possession during normal daily activities is okay. The legal system(?),is the one who has to stand up and say your honor but in case qrs the possesion of...... There is no way we as common folk can know that or have the werewithall to figure out. That is what I mean by stupid jurors and in no way mean it as a milicious statement to anyone.There is alot of info on the web and I am still learning. Even at 56 y.o. I still consider myself a student of our Constitituion and BOR's. If I had a better memory I would be a lot better off but......

[Pat/Rick]

It is illegal to lie under oath.  During the voir dire the attorneys will be asking the prospective jurors various questions regarding their ability to follow the law as the judge gives it to you and make a decision based soley on the evidence presented to you and that law.  I doubt most jurors could get through a selection without lying if they intended to use their "right" of jury nullification.

Now this discussion has gotten somewhat confused because jurors always have the right to vote based on the evidence presented.  Jury nullification is the voting based on your own beliefs AND NOT on the evidence presented.  There is no debate that jurors can always vote the way they see fit based entirely on what they have seen during the trial.

Jury nullification is NOT the same as a hung jury, it's not even similar.

I still don't see the lie. I do see nullification as a return of not guilty , maybe by more than one jury.

Put simply: if you don't think there's enough evidence that's one thing.  That's following the law, as you swore under oath to do.  However, saying "I don't agree with this law in principle so I'm not going to vote guilty." is markedly different from "not enough evidence".  In that case you're blatantly disregarding a law when in order to retain your position as a juror you swore that you'd uphold it.

       Thankyou both for those responses. Both well said. Helps alot, like I said,I'm still learning. 

[SHOOTALL]

I still don't see the lie. I do see nullification as a return of not guilty , maybe by more than one jury.

Put simply: if you don't think there's enough evidence that's one thing.  That's following the law, as you swore under oath to do.  However, saying "I don't agree with this law in principle so I'm not going to vote guilty." is markedly different from "not enough evidence".  In that case you're blatantly disregarding a law when in order to retain your position as a juror you swore that you'd uphold it.

I see it different as the law allowes the jury finial say on any law. Saying i will follow law is what I would be doing . Is it not illegal for a judge to tell a jury how it shall vote ? Is that not over stepping his power ?