Jury Duty

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Why haven't I been picked for jury duty yet I actually would enjoy sitting on a jury ...

No, you wouldn't. From stories my dad has told, it will probably destroy what little faith you have left in humanity.

[chequita guevara]

I was mostly annoyed. I'm going to write a letter to the editors around the theme of, "Stop Disrespecting Juries."

The system is completely inefficient too. They have a person at the front of the room reading off numbers all day instead of just posting names on a board or screen. It could be done so much faster, without having to sit there for two to three hours to find out what panel you're going to be on.

[Berzerker]

I can't say that I'm very surprised by the OP. Communists have a habit of evading not just jury duty, but the whole concept of juries to begin with.

He didn't evade jury duty or the concept, the court did that by making sure jurors would rule in favor of the government's drug laws.

[chequita guevara]

He was trying to make a point about trials in communist countries.

[chequita guevara]

The SCOTUS has never ruled on nullification. Obviously judges and prosecutors are opposed to it, and attempts by the defense to go for nullification can lead to mistrial.

[asleepathewheel]

Arguing jury nullification is one of the more enjoyable things things I found-far more than arguing actual innocence

Your guy is basically guilty under the law. he knows that, you know that, everyone knows that, so the pressure is really off and you can be a bit more flamboyant-work up a healthy outrage and fervor.

From Indiana's constitution: In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

Love that passage-Judges hate it

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


No, you wouldn't. From stories my dad has told, it will probably destroy what little faith you have left in humanity.

Nah, I'd enjoy it. My mom's a prosecutor, so I've heard a lot of fun stories (and before being a prosecutor was on juries several times, after law school but while she was raising us and not practicing). I like arguing, and I like sending people to jail, so ...

Note to self: Don't say that last sentence during jury selection.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


No, you wouldn't. From stories my dad has told, it will probably destroy what little faith you have left in humanity.

Surveys my court have taken of jurors shows that when they get called to jury duty but don't get on a jury, they hate it; but when they do get on a jury, they take their duties very seriously and find their service rewarding.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The SCOTUS has never ruled on nullification.

Wrong.

We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision. U.S. vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969).

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I was mostly annoyed. I'm going to write a letter to the editors around the theme of, "Stop Disrespecting Juries."

The system is completely inefficient too. They have a person at the front of the room reading off numbers all day instead of just posting names on a board or screen. It could be done so much faster, without having to sit there for two to three hours to find out what panel you're going to be on.

Write to the Jury Co-Ordinator of the Court, and/or to the Presiding Judge of the Court.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Winston
I can't say that I'm very surprised by the OP. Communists have a habit of evading not just jury duty, but the whole concept of juries to begin with.

Well said Winston.

Now, to the Gulag with you for saying it!

[Berzerker]

We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision. U.S. vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969).

Which is why courts dont want jurors opposed to the drug war, they've effectively taken away the jury's power to nullify their laws by selecting people who dont understand their role as jurors. The courts wont even allow defenses to argue for nullification. This is the ultimate power we have over government and its being whittled away.

[Cort Haus]

The upside of having a criminal record = No Jury Duty

[David Floyd]

Chegitz,

This does bring up an interesting point. If you believe drug laws are wrong/immoral (as I do, and suspect you also do), would not the "right" action be to try to get picked for the jury, so as to ensure that someone who committed a victimless crime did not wind up in prison?

Berz,

Which is why courts dont want jurors opposed to the drug war, they've effectively taken away the jury's power to nullify their laws by selecting people who dont understand their role as jurors. The courts wont even allow defenses to argue for nullification. This is the ultimate power we have over government and its being whittled away.

On the other hand, shouldn't jury trials be based solely upon the law? I'm not sure that I want a panel of basically ignorant ****s being able to nullify any law they disagree with. Granted, in some cases, it might turn out well, but it seems to me that nullification should be based on a very strict Constitution limiting federal power, and a judiciary committed to upholding those limitations. We have half of that in place (the Constitution, not the judiciary), but either way, I think that prohibiting attorneys for arguing for nullification is probably proper, if we are committed to rule of law.

As for US vs Moylan, I'd rather suspect you are taking the decision out of context. I'm not inclined to research it, as I've had a couple of beers and am more focused on having more, but at the same time, I think it's reasonable that the decision was simply affirming the right and ability of juries to make whatever decision they wanted, and the inability of judges to nullify a jury's decision in a criminal case. Could be wrong, of course, and I'm just guessing out of my ass, but that seems to be a reasonable interpretation.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by David Floyd
On the other hand, shouldn't jury trials be based solely upon the law? I'm not sure that I want a panel of basically ignorant ****s being able to nullify any law they disagree with.

No, and its up to the Judge/prosecutor to get rid of said basically ignorants.